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?

Cotter,
You seem to be saying that the campaign is not gender biased, but consider the list of names attached to the bottom of the article.

Betty Green, Pauline Woodbridge, Julie Oberin, Annie North, Marie Hume, Veronica Wensing, Beth Tinning, Desi Achilleos and Julieanne Le Comte.

And the author herself comes from the University of Sydney, which is the University that awarded an honorary doctorate to Gemaine Greer last year, who then went on to write an article in a UK newspaper saying that men were “surplus to requirements”.

Does any of that indicate gender bias to you?

When the public is being asked to send in pictures of men with amputated arms, it becomes very, very, very difficult to see how the White Ribbon Day campaign has got much to do with domestic violence.

Viviane, the one sided approach to DV taken by the organisers of WRD amd various other campaigns may contribute to violence against women. The total lack of public sanction against female initiated DV leaves victims of female initiated DV with very few options.

- From my own experience and that of other most of the other men I've spoken to who have had abusive wives it is fairly much impossible to get counsellors and others to take the issue seriously and tell a female that their violence has to stop.
- Others seem to hold the view that if a woman assaults a male then "he must have deserved it".
- Television adds continue to show women assaulting male partners in various forms and treating it either as appropriate or humerous. A recent classic being the add from some months ago where the woman hit the man with a weapon because he had been silly enough to put a car part in the dishwasher.
- Adds claiming to be about stopping DV continue to be (from what I've seen) 100% targetted at male initated DV.
- I've heard reports of some police areas refusing to attend DV situations where the complaint is made by a male. I've also read that in the UK about 30% of the time a male lodging a DV complain will be arrested.
- Male DV shelters are almost non existant.

What is a victim of DV going to do when those who should help won't and where the perpetrator cannot acept that their actions are wrong?
Some will suffer in silence realising that any attempt to sort it out for themselves will leave them as the bad guy. Others will take that risk.

By a continued refusal to take a clear stand against all DV we also leave children exposed to witnessing ongoing violence.

It's time for the one sided campaings to end and for the stance to be against all relationship violence.

Then we might have a real chance of limiting this menace.

R0bert

I thought Leigh was being tongue-in-cheek when he remarked that ..."Violence against women could result from the fact that some of them are always whingeing and complaining about their lot,"...

Nice one Leigh - a good slap's the only way to shut them up, huh?

But what really got me was Leigh's conclusion: "How about women taking responsibility for themselves and getting out of and avoiding situations where they are subjected to violence?"

And I thought Leigh and Sheik Hilaly would never agree on anything...

Perhaps we should reverse the direction of this campaign and change the focus from "Violence against women" to "Violence from men".

Crime statistics show that men are most commonly both the perpetrators and the victims of violence. That is, male-on-male and male-on-female are respectively the two most common categories of assault.

So if we concentrate on the source of the violence, rather than its intended target, we might mollify the brigade of people who don't like listening to "whinging wimmin", for long enough to consider the real issue: men are the cause, and the victims, of most assaults - let's look at why and how to prevent it.

Mercurius,

Surprised to see you doing a "Second Hand Rose" post - commenting on someones else's comment. That's usually the refuge of people who are incapable of making a personal comment on the subject at hand, preferring to lurk until someone says something thay can rubbish.

Your presumption that I'm into slapping women and that I have something in common with Sheik Hilaly is juvenile and stupid. I'll put it down to your youth.

I will freely admit that I am not comfortable with women and have a mysoginstic streak. Probably something that happened in my young days; that's an acceptable exuse isn't, or does it just apply to generation Y? However, I've been married to the same woman for 38 years, have two daughters, two granddaughters and a great grandaughter, all of whom I get along with famously. Can you match that,or are you just big on your feminine side at the moment? I have always thought that you were good on theory, but bereft of practical experience.

If you did have any experience that counts, you would not have made the silly statement that "men are the cause (of)" as well as the victims of violence.

Women, for all their lovable traits, can be the most provovative, irritating and trouble-making creatures on earth. They simply (often) do not know when to shut up and live and let live. Still no excuse for thumping them, though.

Perhaps you will learn this in time, and not presume to correct your elders.

As a man who’s highly involved in the White Ribbon Campaign (WRC), I welcome Bronwyn’s and others’ input.

First, the ads. Yes, they’re deeply problematic. I’ve said so on the WRC blog I’m writing, about a quarter of the way down this page: http://whiteribbonday.wordpress.com/2006/11/06/the-advertising-campaign/. We need much more appropriate and effective ways to inspire men to take action to end men’s violence against women. (At the same time, other members of the National Leadership Group have been more supportive of the ads. I’m pushing for a much better process for producing them next year.)

Second, the issue of the involvement of women and women’s organisations in the WRC. Yes, it’s a key one. The contemporary campaign is a far cry from the effort in which I was involved in the early 1990s, when it was organised by grassroots men’s groups of Men Against Sexual Assault.

I’m enormously grateful to UNIFEM for reviving and organising the WRC, and to women’s groups for their support. At the same time, like you, I’m concerned that it’s losing its defining focus. Internationally, the WRC has been defined by a focus on encouraging *men* to wear white ribbons, in a campaign run largely *by* men (working in partnership with women). The Australian effort is unusual, although at a national level it’s now very much organised by women *and* men.

I’m concerned too that the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women (IDEVAW) is *becoming* “White Ribbon Day”. The WRC should be one aspect of IDEVAW, not define it.

However, I’m pleased to note that these issues are very much on the agenda of the National Leadership Group. And more and more men and mainstream men’s organisations *are* taking up the WRC.

There will always be a challenge in getting significant numbers of men, rather than women, to support the WRC. Women offer support more readily than men to the issue of ending men’s violence against women. But this should remain the core goal, and challenge, of the WRC: to mobilise men to play a positive role in helping to end violence against women.

We should be concerned about violence from any source:

Lesbian Domestic Violence:
unseen, unheard and discounted
Jude Irwin
Department of Social Work, Social Policy and Sociology,
University of Sydney

"There is little dispute about the existence of lesbian domestic violence but there is dispute in the literature
and research about how widespread it is. In the USA some studies estimate that seventeen percent of
lesbians experience domestic violence while others estimate the numbers to be as high as seventy three
percent ((Marguiles 1996). In Australia there have been no prevalence studies which makes it difficult to
estimate the extent of lesbian domestic violence. However anecdotal evidence would suggest that it is
widespread. Many of the forms of abuse that lesbians experience are similar to those experienced by
heterosexual women including physical (eg hitting, kicking and use of a weapon, destruction of
possessions), emotional (eg public denigration, belittling, blackmail, threats of abuse, interruption of eating
and sleeping patterns), sexual (eg forced sex and rape), financial (eg not contributing income, having
control over all assets and money, demanding financial support) and social (eg isolation from family and
friends). However as well as similarities there are also differences. Most of these are related to the
homophobic views about lesbians and the consequent discriminatory attitudes and behaviour. This has
many implications for lesbians who are abused including the lack of appropriate support services and
negative attitudes and practices of some personnel in mainstream services."

http://www.aic.gov.au/conferences/policewomen2/Irwin.pdf

If feminists have hijacked white ribbon day, then it is not a men's movement any more is it?

I used to volunteer at Amnesty International and was in full support of WRD, as a part of it's Stop Violence Against Women campaign. I endured speakers from organisations like the Women's Council for Domestic and Family Violence Services, using the fact that the 'focus' was on violence against women to villify and attack men, and blame domestic violence on men entirely. A pattern which was repeated in this article. That was until I found out the truth.

The fact is, since the 1980s, studies on domestic violence have consistently found that it is a two-sided affair.

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 196 scholarly investigations: 153 empirical studies and 43 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 177,100.

http://www.mediaradar.org/

Not to mention the recently released Australian Personal Safety Survey released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, which was completely ignored by feminist organisations, as the wish to limit the "focus" of domestic violence issues.

etc. etc.

Casting it as a one-sided affair will place responsibility and shame on one side and alleviate the other side of any responsibility for their actions. This can only ever be seen as a hateful attack on the former side and furthermore compounds rather than alleviates the problem.

Perusing the sites affiliated with white ribbon day you can find copious evidence of the true motivations for their one-sidedness. Apparently, the cause of domestic violence, when enough of the 'focus' has been on women in order to cover up male victims, is "patriarchy" and "discrimination against women". This would completely ignore the actual causes.

Simply put organisations that support white ribbon day are doing so for political gain and a motivation of justifying a marginalisation of men in more general areas.

Thanks for the advice about not correcting my elders Leigh. But I'll continue to correct anybody I encounter who's wrong, regardless of their age. I'm very non-discriminatory that way. :)

No, I can't "match" your achievement of having lived for many years and spawned many progeny. Gosh I'm impressed though. Then again, I have fewer lines on my face and more hair than you. Why don't we go outside and have a pissing contest and then we'll know who's right?

And I did make a personal comment on the subject at hand - I believe the focus should be on "violence from men", not "violence against women".

It's a fact that men are most commonly the cause as well as the victims of violence. Most of the people locked up for assault are men, and most of the people hospitalised for assault are men. That is a true statement that can be verified by consulting any public records of gaols or hospitals, and it has nothing to do with my age or experience.

Attacking an argument because of the age of the messenger is a new low for you Leigh, you can do much better than that.

And I've yet to meet a woman, even my wife, who's as provocative, irritating or trouble-making as most of the men who regularly post to this forum, myself included.

Have a nice day.

Happy Bullet, thanks for the links. I've not worked through much from those links yet but have found an article referenced from one by Richard Gelles very interesting. I'd read claims elsewhere that Gelles and his colleague's had rejected the findings of their earlier research, this article makes it clear that is not the case.

A number of sections stand out but space won't allow the reproduction of much so I'll grab one.

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."

R0bert

Oh what a pointless moan.

What I dislike is the stereotyping of men by these women who, if we were to believe them, which I for one do not, are the only gender which does a days work, us boys being out there playing with our mates and leaving all the chores to the girls.

Wake up tootsies, this fella can and does look after himself. I do not need a woman to make me complete, although I enjoy the company of women immensely.

But "wants" and "needs" are different things and mine is purely a "want".

Oh and on the matter of violence, more violence has been perpetrated against me by both of my ex wives than has ever been dispensed by me.

Although some women I am sure bring violence unto themselves, a consequence of a co-dependent disorder. Hanging around with low life drunk and abusive blokes who will not change but the dumb gals just don't get it.

So a word on that, do not expect anyone to change. Who you meet on a first date is the best that person will be and you will not change him (or her for that matter) to what you really want them to be and quite honestly, do not have the right to try to make them change.

When people of both genders realise that individuals are individuals and we should glory in their individuality and not attempt change them or homogenise them, then the happier we will be, the better partners we will make and the better and more successful relationships we will have.

But what do I know - I am only a bloke - but I am first amd foremost an individual bloke!

Did the new ads make it to TV on saturday? I only watched the cricket for a few hours on sat and didn't see a single WRD ad. I was aware of them through a 7:30 report or lateline article.

The older ads "Violence against women - Australia says no" have made a comeback.

There is a particular line in this article that sticks in my craw:

" but they do nothing to send a message to men about their collective responsibility for male violence, whether committed by them or not."

ah: "collective responsibility"?

This statement simply clumps all men of every kind as a 'collective', which implies a joint enterprise of violence against women and children by men.

Sorry, I thought that we live in a society comprising individuals, not collectives.

Violence Against Women - Australia Says No.
Violence Against Men - Australia Says Nothing?

Men would be more interested in white ribbon day if women took the same sort of responsibility and made a day to prevent violence by women against men.... the idea of which happening is laughable.

No. All we get from feminist organisations and supposed domestic violence prevention organisations is denial of mountains of evidence of gender symmetry, often using quite underhanded tactics.

Many of such tactics can be found at Murray Strauss' website in the paper:

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CTS44G.pdf

Where the most common criticisms are answered. More than likely the claim that Gelles recanted some of his earlier work was the result of a rather underhanded tactic like the following:

"Another irony is that despite these denunciations, many feminist researchers use the CTS. However, having used the CTS, they re-affirm their feminist credentials by routinely inserting a paragraph repeating some of the erroneous criticisms. These criticisms are then cited in other articles as though there were empirical evidence."

You can also see large amounts of criticism of the UN report mentioned in this article, which also biases the issue, and blames it entirely on men, for example:

http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2006/1018roberts.html

So really with a climate of feminist denial of women's violence against men can you really expect men to care or support campaigns about the contrary, when their compassion would clearly not be reciprocated?

The thing that really gets me about this is the fact that eliminating the responsibility of one side of the problem simply encourages it in that side. Rather than subsidise their own oppression in this manner men are more likely to engage in grass roots movements to bring attention to the true nature of the problem, for example, by putting out video evidence of women's violence, such as the following:

http://www.antimisandry.com/vbdr/bullbusters

Have any of you guys managed to get hold of the free Bull Busters video going around? It's called Violent Women and it is very powerful.

While reading this piece, I found myself feeling very antagonistic towards the author. In turn, this made me somewhat puzzled at myself. After all, it's not as if I condone or conduct violence against women. Nor am I aware of any of my friends or colleagues doing so. So why was I feeling antagonistic instead of agreeing wholeheartedly? I think it came down to two lines in the piece.

The first was "collective responsibility for male violence, whether committed by them or not." This is a very worrisome notion. I do not feel that I am responsible for violence conducted by otehr men. Applying the same logic, should we hold all muslims responsible for islamic violence, whether conducted by them or not? Should we hold all indigenous Australians responsible for public drunkenness, whether committed by them or not? Should we hold all single mothers responsible for welfare dependence, whether committed by them or not? Of course we should not. Applying this sort of collective responsibility logic just gives people an "out" to avoid their own personal, individual responsibility for their actions. And tarring me personally with the brush of violence because I am male, made me antagonistic.

The second was the reference to "men’s active involvement in their own campaign." By the evidence presented in this article, WRD is not "men's own campaign". Men are voting with their feet by ignoring WRD in droves. In Australia at least, WRD is a women's campaign to try to change behaviours in men. And that's fine, but let's not be laying guilt trips on men for failing to getting involved in "their campaign" when it's actually nothing of the sort.

Grrr. I still feel antagonistic towards the author. I don't want to, but nothing in the article makes me want to get involved in WRD either.

It gladdens my heart to see people challanging the misandry, the bias and prejudice.

AnthonyMarinac, you are right. The way the author puts it about collective responsiblity, is if some bloke on the moon assaults a woman then any bloke on earth can be held responsible and punished for the crime committed by another.

“Their main(arguement) was that the studies showing equal violence between the sexed used flawed methodology. Yet the same methodology has been used in studies which show women alone to be the victims of domestic violence.

Similarly, they complained about the ‘validity of self-reported data’ which were possibly compromised by failures of candour or memory’ because there was no consensus about the use of terms like ‘hit’ or ‘grabbed’ or ‘used a knife’, or what violence meant. Precisely the same terms, however are used by researchers who claim that women are abused by men. So once again their criticism was highly selective.”
Melaine Phillips the sex change society p.138

I reiterate if we are really serious about dealing with the issue of violence then there must be a holistic approach, not the piecemeal fashion. If you do not treat the underlying cause of disease, people will still get sick.

Are phrases 'Human Rights' and 'Social Justice' meaningless and empty? Being selectively applied only to women.

To me the WRD is not about ending violence, it is just another tool to use to just bully men and beat them into submission.

Dear bronwyn,
Let's not beat around the bush- men are physically active with an inbuilt ability to be violent- sometimes with little provocation or on short notice .This is an essential part of their nature as defenders of the family and their home .
Usually they can get agression out of their systems with their work and sport .It is not natural for men to be violent towards their wives or girl friends if they have a reasonably satisfying working, sex and family life, and wives or girl friends that understand men's basic needs and characteristics .
Possibly, some women want less of that boredom of life that anchors men, as they are evidently responsible for initiating some over 60% of divorces .This to me is tragic and terribly for the cohesion of our society .
Can you tell me how the crop of fatherless boys and girls will react to the strains and pressures of life and love as adults?
I do not know why so many women want children so much, but then find their partners so easily dispensible it appears - perhaps in the interests of a happier Australia you could put some of your research dollars towards making our natures more understandable to the opposite sex.
Why are men so jealous??
Can women exert psycological and sexual pressure on men - i think so !
To me, women are reacting to our evolving society - men are handling changes badly in many cases -possibly as they have not enough male and female friends to support them .
Women have been and are today wise, strong and independent - they need to be . However women have a great responsibility to society to help maintain a PEACE [if uneasy], between men and women in their relationships, for all our sakes .

Violence is violence.

This article is simplistic and poorly argued. I agree that many of the victims of DV that are reported are women and understand that a man is generally capable of greater harm when they are violent.

While women are victims of violence, to deny the legitimacy and existence of men as victims of violence tells only part of the story.

Men who are victims of violence are silenced by the feminist movement- their experiences nullified by the feminists.

However, until violence is recognised and challenged as violence nothing will change.

It is not ok for a person to strike, abuse etc another person, and is particularly repugnant when a person enacts violence against those they profess to care for.

I know of many violent women and men, and in a domestic situation people can be taught/learn ways to minimise the chance that arguements will escalate into violence.

From my personal experience I know of men and women who have been and/or are violent.

I experienced extreme violence from my female parent when I was a child. I witnessed her enact violence on my male parent with knives, spears, gun, furniture etc, while he was a 'gentle man' and did not hit a woman.

As a mature woman myself, I reject the simplistic notion that only men beat up on women. It is up to each individual to reject violence as a way of life. My husband and I have been together for more than 25 years and have not had an arguement (pretty amazing as we are both stong personalities) - we do not always agree but we do not argue for we both exerienced violence as children.

Women are capable of violence against men.
Women are also capable of violence against women and children.

It never ceases to amaze me how these messages are always aimed at the mainstream, white culture.

Why is the message never aimed at minorities?

Do they not have domestic violence?

Just as western feminists bizarrely ignore issues of forced marriages, female genital mutilation, as well as the general status of women in backward Islamic societies, this issue must be hidden as well.

Don't you know that domestic violence rates in Islamic communities are the lowest in Australia?

Well, yeah, but the escape rate from prison is low too. Just as domestic violence was considered the norm in western society up until about forty years ago, even culturally acceptable, it is the same in non-western communities.

So then, with White Ribbon Day upon us, and numerous advertisement campaigns on television about domestic violence at the moment, what are such groups doing to stop it in non-western communities?

Given that domestic violence occurs at too high a level in mainstream Australia, even though women are our equals, what are those behind such campaigns doing to educate the many Australians from non-western cultures, which are so behind on the topic it is neither debated nor reported?

Even the Muslim Women's Network had an article on their website recently by a visiting cleric stating that a woman can't refuse her husband sex in Islam, which shows how much work needs to be done. Muslim clerics often denounce women, as did the leader of Australia’s Islamic community Sheik Taj Din el-Hilali recently, and given that he hasn’t been removed, indicating a significant number of Muslims support his views, how is domestic violence in such communities being dealt with?

Or is this issue going to be taboo just as ethnic gang violence, racism from non-whites, and the disasterous policies of multiculturalism - which by stopping genuine criticism of barbaric practices within non-western cultures means it protects rednecks within such cultures, are?

Michael Flood
If you of all people believe that the White Ribbon Day campaign ads are deeply problematic, then those campaign ads may very well be deeply problematic.

You won the award from the Men’s Rights Agency for maligning males in 2005. Incidentally the winners for 2006 were Germaine Greer for her inappropriate and maligning comments regards Steve Irwin, and Peter Costello for his maligning comments that men spend too much time in the pub, when in reality Australian men are working very long hours to pay off mortgages, pay for their children’s education and pay off the trade deficit, and much of that can be attributed to government decisions made in the past. So as a past recipient of the award for maligning males, you are in good company.

You could tell the WRC that there is at least one man who isn’t going to be wearing a white ribbon on White Ribbon Day, now or at any time in the future.

Instead that man will be wearing a T-shirt with the following:-
I do not support domestic violence.
I do not support feminists who run totally gender-biased organisations such as WESNET.
I do not support feminists who use bogus domestic violence statistics.
I do not support feminists who try to suggest that all men carry out all domestic violence.
I do not support feminists who try to encourage men to commit self-harm, amputate their arms, crawl through broken glass, or throw themselves under a bus.
I do not support the feminists behind White Ribbon Day.

But the White Ribbon Day campaign does highlight the violence of feminism, although the violence of feminism is normally associated with male discrimination, and many of the comments made by the author in this article and other articles she has written about the male gender are blatant discrimination of the male gender.

The author could be a future nominee for the award for maligning males, but she does face considerable competition from other academics in Australian Universities.

HRS, thanks for your comments. I'm critical of the WR ads because they don't emphasise the key focus of the campaign, men's *positive roles* in helping to end men's violence against women - a role I hope you would support.

As I wrote in the Resource Kit for the campaign;

"Men have a crucial role to play in stopping rape and violence .
Most men do not commit violence against women. Most men know that rape and sexual assault are wrong. But we have done little to reduce physical and sexual assault in our lives, families and communities."

"There is much that men can do to help stop rape, domestic violence, and other forms of violence. Violence against women will only stop when men join with women to put an end to it. And both men and women will benefit from a world free of violence.

[...] The good news is that most boys and men are not violent. Many men have loving and respectful relations with women. And most men share the belief that physical or sexual violence against women is never acceptable. But violence-supportive attitudes and inequalities are still common and some men do act on them.

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. Boys and men are most at risk of violence from other boys and men.

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.

Men will benefit
In campaigning against violence done to women, it is important to remind ourselves of what we are standing for: we want friendships and relationships which are fair, empowering and peaceful; we want sexual lives based on consent, safety, and mutual pleasure; and we want girls and women to grow up free from the threat of violence."

Floody wrote,

"we want sexual lives based on consent, safety, and mutual pleasure;"

I agree with that.

"and we want girls and women to grow up free from the threat of violence."

I also want boys and men to free from the threat of violence, not just women.

"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."

Yes it is part of the same struggle. so why approach it in a piecemeal fashion?

"But violence-supportive attitudes and inequalities are still common and some men do act on them."

I hear day in and day out the violent supportive attitudes of women. Some even seem to be proud that their husbands are scared of them.

"he makes me so mad!", "he makes me so angry" "I wanted to hit him" etc etc

Simply claiming that only men need to change their attitudes and the violence will end, is not going to work unless both genders are prepared to challange their beliefs and attitudes towards the other

Did the Townsville signatories to this article read the front page story of the Townsville Bulletin of Monday. The head line reads "Police investigating spate of assaults: Girl Gang Crime Wave". Apparently girls are going around beating up on other girls.

It is a pity that the resources of mental thought are not looking at violence as an issue, instead of gendering it. Being a female does not grant the right to enact violence.

Was it this year or last year that 2 young girls/women beat a cabby to death and then gloated about it?

Michael Flood
Congratulations. Perhaps being placed in a line with Germaine Greer and Peter Costello has done you some good.

You have now said the words “some men”, but it is very rare that a feminist will use the words “some men”, and much more common that a feminist will use the words “men”, thereby classifying all men as one and the same.

The author does this at the end of the article:- “Until all men involved with initiatives such as WRD are truly prepared to “walk” their talk - as Col did, for example - men will, literally, keep getting away with murder.”

So by her choice of wording, men in general are now classified as being murderers. This is blatant discrimination of the male gender, and it would be the same if the author had written “Jews will, literally, keep getting away with murder.”, or “blacks will, literally, keep getting away with murder.”

Many feminists can’t see their own discrimination for their own bigotry.

Frankly I don’t know why Universities in this country have anti-discrimination policies, when those policies are so readily disregarded by their own staff. Or perhaps those policies are only disregarded when it comes to male discrimination

Adam Jones, one of the initial founders of WRD and the Executive Director of Gendercide Watch, has long ago disassociated himself from the campaign as a result of it being exploited for political gain:

http://www.philo5.com/Feminisme-Masculisme/991206%20Why%20I%20Won't%20Wear%20A%20White%20Ribbon.htm

"The claim that all men must share responsibility for the violence some men do to some women has become a veritable mantra over the last several years. Almost no-one has bothered to examine its foundations, or criticize the hypocrisy of its exponents."

The hypocrisy in this statement is that the people that are attempting to shame men for not meeting a standard of behaviour have never attempted or communicated willingness to meet anything close to the same standard of behaviour themselves.

With the knowledge that women are violent towards men, are *they* willing to take responsibility for other women who are violent, even if they are not themselves?

That idea is so laughable it is ridiculous. It is clear to men that participation in something like WRD is a "no good deed goes unpunished" deal where the "focus" will remain solely on men as perpetrators indefinitely.

If men "see red" that women will not take responsibility, what's the reaction? "You are prone to anger like an abuser!". Inspiring.

Recently, in the US, a woman called in to the radio show of a men's issues advocate, Tom Leykis. She confessed that she had murdered her husband and got away with it by claiming battered wife syndrome. She was there to brag that there was nothing he could do about it. She was identified:

http://www.blowmeuptom.com/archive.tl?h=57

When a men's rights advocate, that is hated by feminists, and labelled a misogynist is solving MURDERS, we have to examine the implications to justice of feminist insistence on a one-sided focus on the issue.

The truth is, when men are going to jail, having their human rights violated and even being killed as a result of widespread ignorance of one side of the problem's responsibility, men now have a greater responsibility to protect their fellow *men* from covered up violence and harassment from feminists.

Benjamin, "It never ceases to amaze me how these messages are always aimed at the mainstream, white culture."

I guess that you have never heard discussions regarding the rates of DV and child abuse amongst the indiginous community then.

I've seen coverage of those issues in the media and mention of the overrepresentation of indigenous kids on child abuse/protection web sites. I doubt that many indiginous communities classify as mainstream, white culture.

My recollection is that some of the individuals depicted in the "Violence against men - who gives a s#$t" campaign were of non-anglo appearance but am not certain of that.

I think that the politicisation of DV and child abuse has played a role on how the issues are addressed, the issues have been misrepresented to create a perception that DV and child abuse are a male problem and not effected by other factors. Part of that process may be that issues relating to specific sections of the community are not addressed.

R0bert

Leigh says: "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."

Leigh you didn't notice that after the woman slaps the male which is usually in response to some provocation or lewd suggestion- the male would grab the woman and forcefully kiss her on the mouth? This is symbolic of rape. Elvis and John Wayne movies are good examples.

Col Rouge. Isn't that French for red collar or red neck?

Benjamin you are free to protest red-neck behaviour. You just did. I disagree with a lot of what you say, but you do say it well. I get the feeling though that it is reworded second hand info. Are you a member or leader of some group?

It was just a mere century ago that the rule of thumb still applied. You could legally beat your wife so long as the switch wasn't thicker than a males thumb (I only just saw this in a movie - checked it out and it is indeed the case - so much for well-rounded education).

The British were even multicultural back then but only because people riled against the dominant cultural norms like the rule of thumb. The women and men who refused to accept this misogynistic cultural more were seen as an aberration or even counter-cultural. Thus multicultural societies tend to reject oppressive “redneck” behaviours and ultimately nurture goodwill to others.

Leigh see "Boondock Saints" if you want to see a man respond to a woman's slap in a movie. Two pennies for rapists and their supporters?

Or Leigh just go to the violent porno movie sites in which women are raped, bashed for the pleasure of anonymous male onlookers. That should clear up your delusion. Why isn’t degrading stuff discussed more as I think the portrayal of women in this stuff is a major cause of violence against women?

Ronnie Peters wrote:

<i>It was just a mere century ago that the rule of thumb still applied. You could legally beat your wife so long as the switch wasn't thicker than a males thumb (I only just saw this in a movie - checked it out and it is indeed the case - so much for well-rounded education).</i>

Ronnie, this is a myth. I expect that you "checked it out" at a feminist site. In fact, the term "rule of thumb" derives from an old-fashioned method of measurement for carpenters. There has never been found any reference to such a rule within English common law. The opposite is true: British law has explicitly prohibited wife-beating since at least the 1700s.

As for the general topic, it ought to be remembered that at least 25% of physical assaults on women are committed by other women (see ABS Women's Safety Survey 1996 and Personal Safety Survey 2005).

It is therefore a distortion to always focus on men as the perpetrators of violence against women.

Hamlet “Collective Responsibility”
You are right in such pandering to populist beliefs is the sort of trash values which would catch in anyones craw.

Collective responsibility is a nonsense, the sort of slogan which should have gone out with tribal markings.

Why is it that these sorts of feministic articles go on about the male gender with such low bigotry. Do they not consider that it would be classed offensive if they made such claims based on race or religion,

eg. “Arabs are all terrorists” or
“The Jews are collectively responsible for the death of Christ”

neither statement do I believe and I use them only to illustrate the sort of stupid bigotry which dares suggest -

That any gender has a collective responsibility for anything.

Anyone who wants to claim I share a “collective responsibility” for the violent stupidity of other men and the willingness of too many women to accept or collaborate in it through their own co-dependent behaviour, can try to make whatever claim they can muster but I would deny such “collective responsibility”.

Same way as anyone admits to some “collective responsibility” for my personal actions is a moron.

I keep coming back to one of the predominant basis of my personal values set,

we are all individuals, responsible for our own actions, not the actions of our parents or cousins or spouses. We might, in some instances be reasonably considered responsible for the actions of our children (if they are below age of maturity) but that is it.

Collective responsibility is being used purely as a knee-jerk scapegoat reaction by the feeble minded in an attempt to rationalize actions which they just cannot grasp but it should have no place is the reasoning of responsible individuals.

Ronnie peters “Col Rouge. Isn't that French for ... red neck?”

Yes Ronnie, I did realise that, it is merely my sense of humour at work (if one decides to use a nom-de-plume, best choose something snappy).

ronnie, "Leigh you didn't notice that after the woman slaps the male which is usually in response to some provocation or lewd suggestion" - leaving aside the bit about the forced kiss for the moment are you suggesting that a physical assault can be justified on the basis of some provocation or a lewd comment?

That does seem to be a fairly common theme from those who support female violence, that when a man strikes a woman it is never her fault but when a woman strikes a man it can be justified because she did not approve of his behaviour.

In regard to the forced kiss issue some of those old movies do seem to push the idea that no means yes. Sad and something which both men and women need to move past. Yes and No should always mean exactly that.

I've seen plenty of more recent work (mostly small screen) where the assault happens but it is not followed by any kind of forced kiss/rape/embrace etc. One TV ad even had the male saying something like "fair enough" after being hit with a weapon by the woman.

Few provocations and no lewd comment are ever justification for physically assaulting another human being, quite simple really.

R0bert

Many studies have found that large proportions, in some populations even the bulk of women, think that physically assaulting men is acceptable behaviour.

In one study one of the main reasons women cited for using physical violence was because 'men have been conditioned not to retaliate'.

Apparently women can use DV with impunity because the Public Awareness Campaigns and police harassment have trained men to not even try to protect themselves.

Hmmm, time for a bit of dissasociation on my part, I think. This thread has taken an unusual twist.

I stand by my earlier post - I'm not interested in WRD, partly because I don't feel responsible for violence committed by other men, and partly because I don't like being told by the feminist army what I should be most cocnerned about, or that a campaign is "my campaign" and failing because I'm not active enough.

Having said that, I for one do not think that it is good enough to respond to concerns about violence against women by arguing, as many above have, that there is also violence against men, and violence by women against women. I also don't think that it's OK to argue, as some posts above *almost* do, that all women should bear some level of responsibility for violence by women. Finally, I don't think all feminists hate men.

Of course women campaigning for an end to violence against women don't talk about violence against men. Duh. That's like arguing that campaigns to treat breast cancer are somehow deficient because they don't also focus on prostate cancer. If there's a need for a campaign to stop female violence against men, then iniitate one.

For my part, I just think we all ought to keep our bloody hands to ourselves.

Ronnie Peters

you may have heard that during grand finals, domestic violence increase or that the leading cause of death for pregnant women is domstic violence.

Both are myths. Basically these sensational claims where used to launch campaigns.

Super Bowl Sunday
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/superbowl.asp

Pregnancy Murders
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,142778,00.html

Daphne Patai in Heterophobia identified a technique used and that is inflammatory annologies, for example sexual harrasement is the same as rape, etc.

The media loves simple catchy phrases, it doesn't matter if it is not factual. Just as long as someone said it.

AnthonyMarinac Men also get breast cancer admittedly at a much lower rate than women, however men who have a female relative with breast cancer are at increased risk.

There is a campaign for men to have their prostates checked.

I agree that not all feminist hate men, however the ones we often hear are the ones who do, some feminist who like men write articles supporting men and challanging feminist misandry and myths, some have joined the men's movement etc.

But by and large their voices are silent in the media.

AnthonyMarinac - "I for one do not think that it is good enough to respond to concerns about violence against women by arguing, as many above have, that there is also violence against men, and violence by women against women."

I believe it is appropriate. As we can see from recriminations on here: violence breeds violence; bad behaviour breeds bad behaviour. Most domestic violence can be classed, rather than as initiated by one side or another as 'mutual combat'. That is, the *primary* cause of domestic violence is ... violence. Therefore, if these campaigners were serious about addressing domestic violence they would consider it as a two sided problem. With that in mind, domestic violence will NEVER end until it is.

Imagine if two countries are trying to broker peace.. think focusing on one country's violence only will work? This will solve the problems in the middle east?

By the focus being on women only, with law reform completely favouring them, in the US the system is so out of hand that false accusations overshadow legitimate cases, a man can be barred from his home on a woman's word and men who complain about battering are arrested themselves as a result of "primary abuser" assumptions in legislation.

And of course, the idea of "collective responsibility" is unfair. I would not argue this in a vacuum. But, we can see whether all men bear collective responsibility or not by looking at whether the people who are attempting to shame us for not taking that responsibility are at all willing to take it themselves.

"If there's a need for a campaign to stop female violence against men, then iniitate one."

Am trying right now. Am told the focus is on women. Typical of what happens. Here is a video of feminists disrupting a battered men's conference:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qodygTkTUYM

Zero media or government attention.

By accepting the focus being solely on men, men contribute to their own oppression and the oppression of their brothers, fathers and mates, and domestic violence will never stop to boot.

Contrary to what gender feminists would have people believe, violence against women by some men of Anglo-Saxon heritage is a flea bite compared with the very great bulk of domestic violence which is committed against children by their carers. For example, from newspaper reports,in the Gold Coast alone several thousand children suffer serious neglect daily.

It is reprehensible that gender feminists continue to hijack the debate on domestic violence for their own selfish purposes and may use government funds and positions to prosletyse their anti-male message, while thousands of children continue to suffer and in some cases die, in silence.

Shame, feminists, shame.

Anthony, "That's like arguing that campaigns to treat breast cancer are somehow deficient because they don't also focus on prostate cancer."

Actually it's more like arguing that campaigns about skin cancer would be deficient if they focussed entirely on female skin cancer. If all of the government money going into skin cancer safety awareness went to combat skin cancer suffered by women, if almost all of the money for skin cancer treatment was allocated to "The office of Women's Health".

There is ample evidence that men and women suffer DV in significant numbers. I happen to believe that the rates are quite similar but even the 80/20 approach still leaves a lot of male victims.

The deliberate and determined refusal by governments and the DV industry to address female initiated DV or to treat the issue in any kind of gender neutral terms is a massive slap in the face for male victims of DV.

It takes no extra effort and takes nothing away from the campaign against DV to speak out against all DV yet repeated attempts to have publicly funded campaigns speak out against all DV or to at least give some recogition to DV where the victims are male continue to be ignored.

Even for those who hold to the 80/20 view of DV should not have to much grief with the idea that some of the anti DV message should be targetted at helping the 20%.

I'm strongly of the view that the continued extreme genderisation of the issue is a deliberate ploy to maintain womens sense of oppression (keeping feminism relevant) and to help provide better outcomes through the family law system for women.

R0bert

Mark Richardson: I stand corrected- no intention to mislead. My mistake - not feminists. However, there is some dispute –note the last sentence of the various quotes below.

I hold that cultural acceptence of violence against women was not myth.

“…the common-law doctrine had been modified to allow the husband 'the right to whip his wife, provided that he used a switch no bigger than his thumb'--a rule of thumb, so to speak."
‘Our law’ did not permit wife beating, but set that aside. Martin clearly was using "rule of thumb" as figure of speech--she didn't claim it actually referred to legalized wife beating. As Sommers shows, however, this detail eluded subsequent retellers of the tale, the most egregious example being the title of a 1982 report on wife abuse by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, "Under the Rule of Thumb." This dark interpretation is now an entrenched popular belief.”
"However, in Blackstone, as Sommers notes, there's no mention of the rule of thumb. We do find the following discussion: "The husband also, by the old law, might give his wife moderate correction . . . in the same moderation that a man is allowed to correct his apprentices or children. . . . But with us, in the politer reign of Charles the Second [1660-'85], this power of correction began to be doubted; and a wife may now have security of the peace against her husband." In other words, once upon a time in olde England, a man could beat his wife. But don't try it now.”

“It might be that he never made the statement that rendered him so notorious. Edward Foss, in his Biographical Dictionary of the Judges of England of 1864 says that to Buller “is attributed the obnoxious and ungentlemanly dictum that a husband may beat his wife, so that the stick with which he administers the castigation is not thicker than his thumb”, but says he can’t find any evidence Buller said it. But the Dictionary of National Biography and other standard works say firmly he did, as did contemporary biographies.”

I'm struck by the contradiction between some individuals' apparent concern for male victims of DV and their undermining of the systems which give male and female victims protection or redress. The fathers' rights (FR) movement presents the strongest example of this. As I've written elsewhere...

The FR movement’s attention to domestic violence against men is not motivated by a genuine concern for male victimisation, but by political agendas concerning family law, child custody and divorce (Kaye & Tolmie 1998, 53-57). This is evident in two ways. First, the FR movement focuses on this violence when the great majority of the violence inflicted on men is not by female partners or ex-partners but by other men. Second, the FR movement seeks to erode the protections available to victims of domestic violence and to bolster the rights and freedoms of alleged perpetrators, and this harms female and male victims of domestic violence alike.

The FR movement has sought to wind back the protections afforded to the fictitious ‘victims’ of violence and to introduce legal penalties for their dishonest and malicious behavior. The Lone Fathers’ Association and other groups argue that claims of violence or abuse should be made on oath, they should require police or hospital records, and people making allegations which are not then substantiated, and those who have helped them, should be subject to criminal prosecution. They call for similar limitations to do with protection orders (Lone Fathers’ Association 2004; DOTA 2005). FR groups also attempt to undermine the ways in which domestic violence is treated as criminal behavior. They emphasise the need to keep the family together, call for the greater use of mediation and counseling, and reject pro-arrest policies.

Such changes would represent a profound erosion of the protections and legal redress available to the victims of violence and the ease with which they and their advocates can seek justice. While FR groups claim to advocate on behalf of male victims of domestic violence, they seek to undermine the policies and services that would protect and gain justice for these same men.

RObert Of course it is wrong to hit anyone without sufficient reason – except to defend oneself. You make out like I agreed with that behaviour - I just noted it. I didn’t comment on whether it was right or wrong. It is generally wrong. However, in the law courts provocation is a defence. It is often an abused defence as often the provocation doesn’t warrant the often disproportionate beating a person will get. Maybe this law needs to be looked at.

JamesH Go and talk to your local Constable Care before you start trying to make out that feminists have nothing to be concerned about. Of the hundreds and thousands of articles written by feminists you can only come up with a few to discredit feminists. This in itself begs the question as to why you are so rabid in your quest to undermine the feminist movement. I think Betty and Brownyn’s article is sensible and timely. The attempts to indirectly undermine them with your questionable examples is wrong.
And Cornflower you are also wrong to chastise feminist for supposedly not caring about the issue of women being violent to men. I’d say that they have their hands full looking after abused women. It reminds me of the old attacks on conservationists who where portrayed as horrid people for caring about whales and not unborn children. I’ll call it diversional-cross-issue-holier-than-thou-emotional propaganda. It is a low tactic.
Domestic violence is a reality and feminists have done an excellent job of raising public awareness.
But seeing as you don’t trust feminists lets see what the police and criminologists say:

Three times every fortnight a homicide occurs in Australia in which intimate partners are involved. In almost four out of five cases the perpetrator is a male and the victim is a female (Australian Institute of Criminology July 1998).
What do you people really want from women and feminists? Subservience? Off you go JamesH I am sure there is a site somewhere that discredits the (AIC)

Actually MF, they are "undermining" systems which give FEMALE victims protection or redress only, which is where the fundamental problem lies.

If those systems were giving ALL victims an equal amount of protection or redress there would be much less of a problem.

The fact is, with the issue being one-sided, feminists have nothing to lose by making an accusation require very little proof and making the punishment as severe as possible.

Sounds like those groups are merely requiring "proof", rather than the word of a woman in order to have a man severely reprimanded. There is no undermining of the ways domestic violence is treated as criminal behaviour in that, as assault requires proof. The idea that justice is lost as a result of requiring proof of an accusation is laughable.

Are you suggesting we put the burden of proof on men, like NSW aims to do in terms of making the man prove consent in rape cases? Yes, let us violate Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights some more to satisfy the feminist hate movement's thirst for blood shall we?

In actual fact, reducing the requirements on proof reduces the protections and services available to sufferers of domestic violence as the legitimate sufferers are overshadowed by false accusers:

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/06/10/02/terri.htm

Seems to me that looking at punishing false accusers is a gender neutral suggestion, so men would be just as subject to it as women, that is of course, unless we're not because men's claims are dismissed out of hand due to the overwhelming "focus" being staunchly maintained on women as victims only.

Again, no problem if the issue was dealt with in a gender neutral fashion without the bias, but that's not on the cards is it? Men want a win - win agreement, but feminists will not accept anything but win - lose with the domestic violence situation unaffected. Good luck getting men to be so gutless as to injustly do themselves over for no apparent reason.

Oh and re your Kaye and Tolmie reference to sound credible:

http://www.mensrights.com.au/page24e1.htm

Nice try.

Floody you are a mischievous little devil.

According to what you write men are much more likely to be victims of violence than women, because they are subjected to violence from both men and women.

“Second, the FR movement seeks to erode the protections available to victims of domestic violence and to bolster the rights and freedoms of alleged perpetrators,”

Clever bit of scare mongering. Is trying to raise the profile of biased and manipulative research eroding the protections of the ‘real’ victims?

In fact according to DV advocates abuse is more than physical. Is not making false and misleading statements DV? If as a male, I made false and misleading statements to the police, I would be punished. So why should women who make false and misleading statements have political immunity.

Now I really wonder if we planted hidden camera’s inside the houses of every man who had been accused of DV, what will we really see?

What sort of scenarios would be played out in front to those hidden camera’s?
Maybe we should just subject everyone to a lie detector test. Including you.

Ronnie Peters

Go to
http://www.mediaradar.org/
http://www.franks.org/fr01060.htm
http://www.csulb.edu/%7Emfiebert/assault.htm

The restrictions here do not allow for an extensive post. Google Erin Pizzey, Murray Straus.

I know a number of police men and women who tell me that in their experience women are just as likely to be the perpetrator as the man.

What you write is correct about the homicides, I understand however where the wife hirers a hit man to do the job for her, this is not classified as DV. Recently in the news has been an investigation about a bloke who has disappeared and another where the son helped the mother to either kill or dispose of his stepfathers body.

Recently in Brisbane it looked like a murder suicide attempt, it turns out the daughter stab both her mother and her father. But public perception is such that it is assumed the male did it. As it was in a successful murder suicide near Bathurst.

ronnie peters said: “And Cornflower you are also wrong to chastise feminist for supposedly not caring about the issue of women being violent to men”

Ronnie, you may be thinking of someone else. My responses were otherwise (and I will lift sections as quotes):

(1) It is reprehensible that gender feminists continue to hijack the debate on domestic violence for their own selfish purposes and may use government funds and positions to proselytise their anti-male message, while thousands of children continue to suffer and in some cases die, in silence; and
(2) There is little dispute about the existence of lesbian domestic violence but there is dispute in the literature and research about how widespread it is. In the USA some studies estimate that 17% of
lesbians experience domestic violence while others estimate the numbers to be as high as73% ((Marguiles 1996). In Australia there have been no prevalence studies which makes it difficult to
estimate the extent of lesbian domestic violence. However anecdotal evidence would suggest that it is widespread.

What I am saying is that it suits some gender feminists to represent domestic violence as being solely about white Anglo-Saxon men (as perpetrators).

Such narrowing of the definition of domestic violence is deliberate and self-serving. It counteracts the efforts of policy makers and health workers who are concerned about all forms of domestic violence and especially child neglect which is being encountered in endemic proportions and is increasing. It is a myth that a mother or other carer of a child would not harm the child.

Again, there are other victims of domestic violence who do not get attention (and may not be believed) through myth. A good example is lesbian couples where violence is common and a victim could go without assistance because of a prevailing and demonstrably wrong belief that violence does not occur in same sex relationships. It does and victims are badly injured.

Like any thinking person I am concerned about all forms of domestic abuse and all victims.

In fact the red that the women are seeing is on the ribbon.

When the men buy a white ribbon these days they normally pull out a felt marker and promptly draw a thick red line down her centre of the ribbon before pinning it on.

When asked why they answer, thats the spilled blood of all the unreported husband bashings and child abuses.

Television adds continue to show women assaulting male partners in various forms and treating it either as appropriate or humerous. A recent classic being the add from some months ago where the woman hit the man with a weapon because he had been silly enough to put a car part in the dishwasher.
=

The most revolting thing about this ad is that it's so totally unecessary.
It could have been so easily re scripted

While the car part was washing, the guy just buzzing down to the local supermarket for some more of the featured diswasher tabs. The wife gets annoyed cause he's run her out of tabs and he just hauls out another box.

But, heaven forbid, now thats' tabbo. Featuring men wiht reall brains and commonsense on TV ads.

The posters here are right when they say that men are more likely to be victims of violence than women, particularly teenage boys and young men. They are also more likely (not that female violence is unheard of, just not as common) to be the perpetrators.
I am the mother of daughters, but one of the things some of my friends who have sons have confided in me is their shock at the violent world their young sons entered almost as soon as they started school.
My daughters have been bullied ( girls can be right little bitches to one another) and I'm sure have been mean to others in their turn, but neither has ever experienced physical violence from either boy or girl. One daughter still has recurring dreams about seeing a male friend of hers ( when they were 14) be singled out and brutally beaten by a gang of much bigger boys who entirely ignored the girls, who ran and fetched help, saving their friend from more serious injury. Boys are much more vulnerable to violence from other boys.
It is the culture of violence - still more acceptable behaviour among men and boys, than among girls - that we must change. Anyone who is physically attacked is being horribly violated and we must stop turning a blind eye to it or regarding it as proof of masculinity. It should be just as unacceptable to hit another man as it is to hit a woman.(Or for a woman to hit a man, or woman). We should also stop hitting our children. The thugs who beat up my daughter's friend understood the code very well. Beating up girls is cowardly, beating up boys is brave. Rubbish, beating up anyone is stupid and completely unacceptable. Its not a bloody competition, bruises are bruises whatever the gender of the skin.

Ronnie, you write in apparent support of an article that shows a very one sided view of DV. You defend that one sidedness with the comment "And Cornflower you are also wrong to chastise feminist for supposedly not caring about the issue of women being violent to men. I’d say that they have their hands full looking after abused women."

The article you defend is based around the premise that australian men are not doing enough to stop violence against women.
"If men are serious about eliminating violence against women, they must act upon this conviction, whether in the criminal justice and family law systems, the workplace, the media or down the pub with the mates."

Most of the posters critical of the gender bias in coverage of DV are quite willing to speak against all relationship violence. It does not take any greater effort to speak against it all than just against one part.
It may be that with no government campaigns to back up, almost no funding to support male victims of DV that we have our hands full as well but we ensure that we don't dismiss the plight of women suffering DV.

Ronnie what we want from those feminists (and paternalists) pushing the myth of DV being overwhelmingly a male issue is some honesty and even handedness.

Dr Flood criticises mens groups for being political about the issue but is strangely quiet about the open use of terms like "Protecting Women and Children" by womens groups to oppose shared parenting regardless of what the stats on substantiated child abuse show.

He writes articles criticising the flaws in the methodology of those who's research shows a lack of generisation in DV but remains silent about the gaping holes in the type of stats used to support the myth that DV is a male issue.

The current author criticises men for not taking a lead role in a campaign that further reinforces lies about DV and is supported by those that think women are to busy to address female initiated DV.

R0bert

In the past men have dealt with men's violence effectively. Feminism has around about ZERO credibility when it claims a desire to deal with a "culture of violence", as it's results and philosophy to date have abjectly failed to deal with the issue and undermined working measures against it, eg:

Male Role Models: For example, FATHERS. A male role model can focus a boy's aggression in more positive ways, such as sports, or even intellectual pursuits.

[ Feminism's main aim appears to be elimination of the family unit and replacing it with single mothers. Of violent men in prison, the greatest common denominator is that their father was absent as they were growing up.

Read the Garbage Generation:

http://fisheaters.com/garbagegeneration.html

Re: violence in schools. Men don't run the schools, women do, and in a PC fashion. Go figure that out. Men tend to regulate conflict (and thus violence) in subordinates, that is if they aren't forced by PC management to enforce zero boundaries. ]

Men's honour : It is not honourable to beat up someone weaker than you, or use larger numbers to beat them up.

[ Feminists constantly attack masculinity as violent. Focusing on demonising masculinity rather than upholding the positive aspects in order to prevent violence is far less effective (and belies a hidden agenda). ]

No double standards ignoring violence in certain contexts: This means GENDER NEUTRALISING CAMPAIGNS LIKE WRD!! There is blatant cultural acceptance of violence against men TODAY. It is even considered humourous, eg:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vtx1X18sQbQ

Mateship and cameraderie: You don't beat up your mates, because you're mates with them.

[ Gender biased campaigns claiming that men have a collective responsibility encourages suspicion and competition between men. Feminists notoriously attack male bonding behaviours. ]

Someone cited Elvis Presley as "violent" in movies. He was a sex symbol. This is not isolated. The real irony, far from lost on high school boys, is that women appear more attracted to "violent" men. How does that prevent violence, instead of reward it?

Again, read the Garbage Generation. Feminism encourages this "culture of violence" with relentless one-sided attacks on "men".

Hands up all the men who have had a partner who refused to talk to them!

Welcome to strange distorted world of DV politics. In it's final report on family violence the feminist Vic Law Reform commission breeched, the human rights, the discrimination act and the principles of social justice.

According to the VLRC, prolonged silences is DV.

The DV industry is for ever expanding the definition looking for new instances, once violence meant physical abuse, now it covers emotional, psychological, financial and sex.

In fact the definition of DV has been expanded so far that almost all types of behaviour can be regarded as DV.

What bloke out there has not had a woman manipulate them into doing something?

Manipulation is DV.

It is interesting when these types of debates go on it degenerates down too who hits who and most often and to who does the most damage.

If withholding praise and compilments is DV , then so is withholding sex.

Erin Pizzey in her discussion paper on violent women, label these types of women as family terrorists. Erin asks "Whose mood sets the tone?"

If a man who says 'You'll never see the children' an abuser then it is no different from the woman does not comply with court orders and deny the children access and contact with the father?

Research into the bullying behaviours of school girls identified telling bad and false stories as bullying. Spreading rumors, gossiping and betraying confidences as well. Guess what women do these things very well

Provocation is no defense unless you are a woman who murders the husband.

I know it was done with tongue in cheek, but a comment from a writer on this issue in another forum suggested that the logic of the WRC indicates the need for a "Little Ribbon Day". This would be to attempt to reduce the amount of violence against children (which unlike violence against women, is increasing).

For "Little Ribbon Day" women would be encouraged to buy a blue/pink striped ribbon. They would be told:
"Wearing a candy ribbon is not a badge of purity or perfection. It does not mean that this woman has never been violent in the past. It does not mean that this woman has all the answers. It simply means that this woman now believes that violence towards children is unacceptable".

For those doubters who may question the reality of women (mostly biological mothers)as majority perpetraors of violence against children, check out the most recent data from the US Department of Health & Human Services at:

Abuse/neglect perpetrators(or “maltreatment” in American speak):
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/figure3_6.htm

Perpetrators of child fatalities
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/figure4_2.htm

I would give Australian data, but the gender of perpetrators of child abuse in Australia has been largely hidden since 1996, when it was found that between 68-80% of perpetrators of child abuse were women (according to the AIFS). The AIFS now concentrates on arguing that this is due to "contextual factors", such as substance abuse, and, in any event they note, the mother spends more time with the children! (And this excuses the behaviour? If so, perhaps White Ribbon could note that husbands are excused from abusing their wives because they spend more time with them!).

Check SBS TV tonight:

11:20 'My Mother, My Abuser"

From the SMH TV Guide: "One quarter of all cases of sexual abuse of children are perpetrated by adult females. Two thirds of their victims are girls".

"This confronting documentary focuses on mothers who sexually abuse their sons and daughters. Statistics show that 22 per cent of cases of child abuse are perpetrated by women and only 35 per cent of the victims are boys. In this program, victims of maternal incest, both female and male, describe their ordeals in detail and recount the trauma they have suffered. Experts provide us with the shocking statistics and reveal that child abuse often happens within apparently respectable middle-class families"

"If men are serious about eliminating violence against women, they must act upon this conviction, whether in the criminal justice and family law systems, the workplace, the media or down the pub with the mates." I agree.

RObert it’s apparent that certain groups main agenda is to discredit feminists and battered women. Their and your time would be better spent lobbying politicians instead of undermining women’s groups. If men and mens’ groups “acted upon this conviction” in the way the article suggested then they would have some credibilty.

It doesn’t follow from BW’s statement that women aren’t concerned about violence generally. Women are overwhelmingly on the receiving end of male bullying and women are responding to that “gender bias”.

Recently in my area police reported that they responded to 30 domestic violence calls in one week– nearly all were male on female. So maybe the reason politicians aren’t too responsive is because the male-on-female domestic violence is overwhelmingly a more serious problem. Policy makers base their decisions on actual QPS reports – not internet propaganda.

Use your energy to lobby politicians instead of whinging because women are more focussed/organised than men’s groups.

I agree, battered men should have the same assistance and compassion as women. But it must be in line with the number of individual cases and the severity of violence. Attacking articles written in the interests of battered women won’t be much help in preventing domestic violence against men.

You blokes please go to anger-management. There ya’ go girls start whining like the mens’ groups: “Where’s our anger-management programs?” The men are too busy blaming others for their own failures to be constructive.

Domestic Violence - Myths and facts
For the community to understand the underlying factors of domestic violence, it is vital that the frequently held myths are dispelled and corresponding facts revealed.

MYTH 1: Domestic violence is a private matter.
FACT: Physical assault in the home is a serious crime and must be viewed as seriously as assault outside the home.
Three times every fortnight a homicide occurs in Australia in which intimate (Cont

partners are involved. In almost four out of five cases the perpetrator is a male and the victim is a female (Australian Institute of Criminology July 1998).
Domestic violence can lead to murder - it is not a private affair.
MYTH 2: Women provoke domestic violence by nagging and other annoying behaviour.
FACT: No one asks for or deserves to be abused - there is no excuse for domestic violence. In fact, most victims of domestic violence do everything they can to pacify the other party to avoid further violence. (Queensland Domestic Violence Task Force Report 1988).
Responsibility for the violence rests with the perpetrator. It is not the victim who committed the crime.
MYTH 3: Battered women can easily leave home if they want to.
FACT: Battered women are usually constrained from easily leaving home by a number of factors.

These include:
o fear of reprisals. Leaving a spousal relationship does not mean an end to the violence of harassment. Abusive perpetrators usually go to considerable lengths to find their victims to continue the abuse and/or regain the relationship;
o in the years 1989 - 1996 there were 2226 homicides committed in Australia. Of these, the highest percentage - 30.7% (685) - were committed by the intimate partner of the victim. The vast majority of these occurred during the relationship or around the time of the dissolution of the relationship (Australian Institute of Criminology November 1997);
o a belief that they may in some way be responsible for the violence and that they can end the violence by changing their own behaviour - most perpetrators blame other people for their behaviour, particularly the victim;
o conflicted feelings about their partner due to the cyclical nature of the violence. Many do not want the relationship to end but hope for the violence to stop;
o concern for their children and partner,
o religious and cultural constraints and shame;
o poor self-esteem. Many victims after years of physical, emotional and/or verbal abuse have lost their self confidence and doubt their ability to cope on their own; and
o financial dependence.

QPS-report.

Looks like people are getting so sick of the feminist bias on the domestic violence issue that now in addition to:

http://www.mediaradar.org/

There is now also:

http://www.nfvlrc.org/

From:

http://www.glennsacks.com/enewsletters/enews_11_21_06.htm

Dissident Domestic Violence Experts Form New Group to Challenge DV Establishment

November 21, 2006

As I've noted on many occasions, the domestic violence establishment is not telling us the full truth about domestic violence, and many destructive family law policies have been based on misleading information.

The "rebellion" I mentioned in the column just took a major step forward with the formation of the National Family Violence Legislative Resource Center. The NFVLRC is a group of distinguished domestic violence experts who have joined together to "Advocate for non-discriminatory and evidence-based policies" and correct the many damaging laws and policies which have been based on misleading claims. In a new statement Hamel, one of the leaders of the NFVLRC, says:

"The founding members of NFVLRC have recognized for some time that current polices are politically driven rather being based on scientifically sound information, and are seeking to change them. As a result of flawed policies, many children are being denied the same range of services simply because of their victimized parent's gender. Current policies have in many instances also resulted in a loss of civil liberties, and research indicates that they have sometimes resulted in increased danger to victims...NFVLRC believes that unless domestic and family violence policies are reformed, victims, children and future generations will continue to suffer from this social problem."

http://www.nfvlrc.org/docs/Fixinghalf.singlespace.pdf

Deals directly with the problem of bias on the issue.

http://www.nfvlrc.org/docs/DV.gendincconception.pdf

"Data on abusive women has been ignored or deliberately suppressed by mainstream academic journals and by such organizations as the Ontario, Canada government and the Kentucky Commission on Women (see Fontes, 2002)"

JamesH-"What bloke out there has not had a woman manipulate them into doing something?"

I had a woman attempt to use shame and guilt attacks to manipulate me into supporting White Ribbon Day...

Today Tonight has just run a story on Peter Brocks alleged wife bashings.

What disgusted me was the way the reporter just brushed past her absurd idea that domestic violence KILLS (That’s kills, as in dead) more women than breast cancer, as if it were some sort of given.

Some sort of proven fact!.


Now while most wife bashings are not reported those numbers are easily balanced by the number of false reports of wife bashings which are actually husband bashings.

But dead bodies?

A dead body is a dead body.
The body count is reasonably accurate. The body count for breast cancer is a 2.5 thousand a year. The murder rate from domestic violence doesn’t even go into the dozens.


This ridiculous media sensationalism is the real cause of the problem. How can any real cop take the average report of wife bashing seriously when so many lies are being told.

Professor Daphne Patai in her book “Heterophobia” draws from the work of Sociologist Joel Best in explaining the claim makers and their techniques.

“Primary claim makers as Best calls them initially ‘define a social problem to their own satisfaction and then present their claims in a fashion likely to draw media attention.’ Thereafter, the media, by spotlighting the problems most dramatic features, transforms the primary claims into secondary claims.”

Two classic examples of this in action are the claims ‘domestic violence is the leading cause of death for pregnant women’ and ‘when grand finals are on there is an increase in reports of domestic violence.’ Both claims are false. See the Super Bowl myth ‘Super bull Sunday’ and ‘The muddled maternal murder series’ Jack Shafer Slate Magazine.

“The business of advancing claims about a problem is rarely static, Best explains,

..claims evolve over a problems history. Initial claim makers must persuade people that a problem exists. Once these early claims gain acceptance and the problem becomes well established, with its own place on the social policy agenda, claimants may begin reconstructing the problem. In particular claim makers are likely to offer new definition, extending the problems domain or boundaries, and find new examples to typify just what is at issue.”

Linguistic tricks are used. Phrases such as “another form of,” “essentially the same as,” “the moral equivalent of,” or “equally damaging as.”

Daphne Patai pointed out that in the literature on sexual harassment alleged victim quickly became victim while the case was still in the complaints phase. Another important point is that the alleged victim was typically identified as being part of an oppressed group, suffering multiple forms of ill treatment. The alleged perpetrator was then shown with another set of characteristics such as being part of a privileged group.

Researching domestic violence a disturbing pattern started to emerge. I began to notice comments about how researchers investigating domestic violence perpetrated against men were subjected to intimidation and threats of violence. Not only were there threats of violence, their books and research papers were also subjected to censorship.

Oh, well, if this thread is any indication, white Ribbon day is a fizzer, and women should concentrate on helping and protecting themselves and leave men to deal with the - much more prevalent - male on male violence. One poster claims this has been solved, and men have sorted it, apparently. Time to tell our police, transit security officers, hospital emergency rooms, school authorities (most principals are male), youth and health workers that all those bashed men and boys they are seeing are either figments of their imagination, self harmers or victims of packs of marauding women. Oh, and I must tell my daughter that what she saw when her male friend was bashed (on a saturday, not at school) must have been a gang of chicks pretending to be boys.
We still glamourise violence by men - watch any western, Bond flick, the Godfather series, any action thriller - the heroes may have good motives but they kill, bash and maim and we cheer them as they do, but they only bash other men, notice. So I return to my point that we see it as acceptable for men to bash other men, and that is wrong too.
Sadly, we are starting to glamourise violence by women too - Kill Bill, Charlie's Angels etc. - because we admire those girls for being as "tough" as men. There is a weird attempt at eroticism in those films, particularly with girl on girl violence.
I stand by my point we have a culture of violence, and while it mostly affects men as both the victims and the perpetrators, women are not immune.

Ena writes, "Oh, well, if this thread is any indication, white Ribbon day is a fizzer..." Well, this thread is *no* indication - it's dominated by a handful of anti-feminist men who are determined to silence and harass any campaign focused on men's violence against women. Whereas out in the real world, large numbers of men (and women) have signed up for the White Ribbon Campaign. They've worn a white ribbon, or they're sympathetic to the campaign, for reasons that I share;
We wear a white ribbon because we care for our wives, our girlfriends, ours sisters, daughters, our female friends, our co-workers. Because we want to support women, and we want girls and women, and men, to be free of violence.
We have heard about the pain and suffering that violence inflicts on women. We know that a fist in the face, a kick in the ribs, being forced into sex, having one’s daily life controlled and policed and tormented, we know that these are horrible things that should never happen.
We wear a white ribbon because, whether we know about it or not, many of the women we know have been subject to men’s violence.
We wear a ribbon because we know that men don’t have to be violent, that men can do better, because we believe that men can be and often are loving, caring, and nonviolent.
Cheers,
michael.

Um ... Floody?

I had decided not to participate further in this thread because it's gone haywire and is no longer really a sensible discussion, but mate I can't let your last post go by.

If White Ribbon Day was such a success, and not such a fizzer, then what the heck was Bronwyn about in her article anyway?

Her statement that "it makes our job harder, not easier, when men who claim to support us ignore our feedback and leave us to do the groundwork on “their” campaign." is another way of saying WRD was a fizzer mate, at least in her eyes.

Better luck next year.

Anthony

Bronwyn's concern was with who did the work organising the campaign, and the fact that women and women's organisations played a substantial role. She writes that instead, men and men's organisations should be doing the bulk of this, given the WRC's focus on men's positive roles in ending men's violence against women. I agree with her.

And this doesn't take away from the facts that;
Men do play a significant role in organising the national campaign, e.g. as at least half of the members of the National Leadership Group, and with a man as Chair;
Over 200 men signed up as Ambassadors for the campaign;
Large numbers of men wore white ribbons on and around the national day.

Best,

michael.

I propose a Rainbow Ribbon Day in lieu of WRD for all of the children who suffer from neglect.

I am opposed to violence against against anyone and regardless of the perpetrator.

However it is a myth that domestic violence is solely or even largely about violence by white Anglo-Saxon men against women.

Overwhelmingly, the highest incidence of domestic violence is against children and that is through child neglect.

White Ribbon Day is about deceit and furthers the cause of those who profit from gender feminism, while at the same time creating fear and distrust, thereby disempowering women and labelling all men as potential abusers.

WRD takes attention and resources away from more pressing needs such as child neglect.

Speak up for the thousands of children suffering from child neglect in this country and wear a Rainbow Ribbon. There is no site dedicated to them!

I would venture that most women and men would support Rainbow Ribbon Day, as would the many voluntary not-for-ptofit groups that heve traditionally shouldered the burden of speaking out for children and youth.

So there would be no need for carping and complaining about who OUGHT to do the work and of course the individuals and organisations so involved in WRD would, as usual, be noticeable by their absence.

I think it was the late Fred Daly who said that in a one horse race you can always bet on self interest.

Michael Flood,
Men joining the White Ribbon Day campaign means absolutely nothing.

If someone wanted to hide the fact that they were carrying out domestic violence, they could simply join this campaign and wear a white ribbon.

This campaign is nothing but an attempt to marginalise and discriminate against a gender, and encourage members of that gender to commit self-harm. This campaign is one of the worse campaigns ever conducted in Australian history, and I strongly support those psychologist throughout Australia who have condemed this campaign and lodged formal complaints about it.

The last line in this article attempts to suggest that all men are murderers. This is no better than trying to suggest that all men are rapists. This article is one of the most discriminatory articles ever published in Australia, and full condemnation must go to the authors who wrote it.

ena- you missed the point entirely. Read it again. The operative words in the first statement are "in the past". The entire rest of the post detailed the ways by which measures to control violence have been undermined by the same movement behind WRD - THUS ELIMINATING THOSE MEASURES. As in "they are not effective any more".

It seems we agree that violence against men is culturally acceptable though, and that it is part of the problem. Again if you're into stopping violence in a gender neutral fashion, we're getting somewhere and can address the real issues instead of pointing fingers, like feminists have been bent on since they decided to instate prohibition in the US, to "stop domestic violence".

flood - "Because we want to support women,"

ha ha you can stop right there on your actual motivations, poodleboy.

The idea of preventing people "having one's daily live policed and tormented etc".. with a one sided campaign that:

1) Supports ignoring all that stuff for, if you include men and children, the majority of the victims.

2) Has men's daily lives "policed and tormented" in order to "protect" the other side as much as possible.

3) Doesn't even deal with the problem for the "protected" side anyway as it backs the other side into a corner and creates unbalanced power in relationships.

4) SUPPORTS violence against men by stereotyping them as abusers, and encouraging competition and suspicion between them.

Might I address sirs attention to the pulled Chopper Read vs Domestic Violence commercial, for example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYJTYBLhWMo

5) SUPPORTS violence by encouraging the breakdown of relationships, thus adding to the more violent demographic of "children raised by single mothers".

Doesn't actually seem well thought out. Good stuff flood, go back to blatantly lying about the methodology used in the conflict tactics scale (hint: if you have to lie to make a point, maybe you don't have one).

HRS, "This article is one of the most discriminatory articles ever published in Australia, and full condemnation must go to the authors who wrote it." - no I've seen far worse.

Dr Floods articles, Elspeth McKinnis work and others make this one look mild. That's no compliment to this article, rather a relection of how sad it is when supposed academics use their position to push agenda's without concern for decent behaviour or truth.

Much as I don't wish harm on anybody I kind of hope that these gurus of the double standard find themselves looking at their work from the other side one day.

R0bert

All of those who claim that this is all a male problem should click on this link and read the first had report from some one who actually knows what she is talking about rith regard to Domestic Violence .
http://www.bennett.com/ptv/index.shtml

I was raised to never hit a girl or not to say things which would upset a woman, (the later has been impossible to achieve).

So I really wonder where this culture is, all of the blokes I know would never hit a woman, even though they may have felt tempted at times.

"But it must be in line with the number of individual cases and the severity of violence. Attacking articles written in the interests of battered women won’t be much help in preventing domestic violence against men."

Ronnie, Ronnie what are we going to do with you. Maybe a course in critical thinking or research analysis.

There are plenty of female authors who challange much of the DV industry.

My brother in law told me about watching this very attractive girl leave a night club by herself, she walked past dozens of blokes and got in her car at night without being molested. So where is this culture that violence against a woman is OK.

JamesH says: “Provocation is no defense unless you are a woman who murders the husband. “ You’re letting your eagerness to smear feminists distort your sense JH. Get into the real world and go to your local cop shop and tell them that they act in a sexist manner. You tell them that, for instance, despite a victim of domestic violence being bashed in gross disproportion to the provocation , that they don’t charge the person who resorts to violence because of their gender or they disregard the provocation because of their gender. You go and make a complaint to the CMC ,if you can find a police officer who in his brief to the station brief manager writes a recommendation not to consider all the circumstances and evidence of the case on gender grounds. You show me one magistrate who would refuse to hear a defence of provocation on the grounds of gender.

JamesH tenuously says: women are just “as likely to be the perpetrator as the man” - but the man is the one who according to crime stats responds with disproportionate physical violence in most cases.

And Happy Bullet I’d be very wary of Daniel Areneus’ “Catholic” “Fisheater” propaganda: He, for instance, claims that of criminals in a US jail three-fourths came from broken homes. He then says: “That means mostly female-headed homes. That means that while the single mothers of these criminals do not themselves commit crimes and go to prison, the socialization they give their children has an extraordinarily high correlation with the male crime of the next generation.” That is just a very motivated opinion that doesn’t at all “mean” what he asserts without any evidence.

It could also mean that the lack of financial support from the absent father “means” the child misses out on opportunity; it could mean the distress of living in a violent home has affected the child’s behaviour; maybe his Dad’s rejection cuts too deep; maybe the separation and divorce has had a psychological effect; maybe the cultural mores of the area and lack of employment contributed. (Cont)

(Cont)There are all sorts of other things it could “mean”. Lots of reasons why the rates are higher –if that is really what the figures really mean. And who broke these homes? Violent men mostly? How many girls of broken homes end in jail? How callous and arrogant to call children of broken homes “Garbage Generation”.
Here’s another example of Areneus’ penchant for imposing his meaning over others, “.. a feminist like Dr. Lerner perceives "female sexuality" as female promiscuity. On page 198, she has this: To the question "Who brought sin and death into the world?" Genesis answers, "Woman, in her alliance with the snake, which stands for free female sexuality." [Emphasis added]
The author has posited his meaning onto what Lerner said. “Sexuality” slips to “promiscuity.” Plenty more of examples in is propaganda. A person so determined to portray women going it alone in such a negative manner and in such a one-sided, mean-spirited manner will do more harm than good to engendering a more paternal society.

JameH you would be better spending your time getting rid of paedophilia in the Catholic Church instead of trying to develop an Islam-like religious caliphate. That is what these responses are mostly (not RObert) about religious zealots turning back the clock. Does the Pope approve this rubbish?

Happy Bullet: “Someone cited Elvis Presley as "violent" in movies. He was a sex symbol. This is not isolated. The real irony, far from lost on high school boys, is that women appear more attracted to "violent" men. How does that prevent violence, instead of reward it?” Once again naïve girls are blamed for the behaviour of violent males who keep their real lack of character private until they think they can get away with it. That is also like saying that parents send their kids to a Catholic School because they want to reward paedophile priests. Now the doormat brigade ave the sulks because women won’t put up with their shiet. And I agree that men shouldn’t put up with you lot - you give the rest of us bad name.

JamesH - Who were they taught that by, their FATHER right? From that we can see how hypocritical it is to undermine "men" by casting them as abusers, when men have been presenting the best measures against it for years.

and for ena - Just to be more clear:

1) Measures 100% effective and perfect. ( + infinity)
2) Effective measures against the problem. (Reality)
3) Measures taken completely ineffective. ( - infinity)

Just incase you are thinking too one-dimensionally or making an argument based on a straw-false-dichotomy, I'm not saying the problem was solved 100% as that is pretty ridiculous based on the nature of the problem.

The point I was making above is that there were effective measures dealing with the problem of male - male violence in the past, and that a movement simultaneously undermining those measures while saying that we need to deal with a "culture of violence" is contradictory and hypocritical.

Feminists have been around for years, and it's only effect on violence against men in that time has been to undermine male measures against it, increasing it.

Another contradiction is that biasing the issue means at least one measure against spousal murder OF WOMEN is ignored:

http://www.angryharry.com/esOnlyWomenAreOfferedAnAlternative.htm

In the US in 1979, 1600 men kill their partners, 1400 women kill their partners. In the US in 2002, 1300 men kill their partners, 300 women kill their partners.

Why? 1979 coincides with the feminist involvement with DV nicely. Because women are given an alternative and men are not - that is why.

NOW:

* ANOTHER LETS-BLAME-MEN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BLATANT LIE DEBUNKED *

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi255t.html

Over the 13-year period covered by this analysis there were 77 intimate partner homicides, on average, each year.

75% were women, which means around: 58 women die from domestic violence per year.

http://www.nbcc.org.au/bestpractice/statistics/

There were 2,641 female deaths and 20 male deaths due to breast cancer in 2004.

Somehow 58 is more than 2,641. Wonder what other lies there are surrounding the Peter Brock alleged as abuser after can't defend himself case or the feminist position on domestic violence for that matter.

In response to Michael Flood: It is not that men dont want to see violence against women stop but if you look at incidence and reporting figures from the ABS Personal Safety Survey you should notice that women victims report DV at quite high rates while male victims report DV at such low rates they cant even be used for statistical purposes.

From this it is easy to infer that there is a much greater requirement in the culture for a Public Awareness Campaign for male victims than there is for female victims however the money (and lots of it) all goes to campaigns for women's causes - this is the injustice to which we object.

And as for Ronnie's rave about not being able to find police, etc who profess prejudice I would just like to say: this is the nature of prejudice. It is not considered, prejudice does not take part in the decision making process at all, it underlies it, it orients it, it takes place before any judgement occurs that is why it is called pre-judice. No-one professes prejudice - everybody thinks they are fair and balanced except perhaps for some completely cynical hired guns.

"To my amazement, nobody seemed to genuinely want to find out why violent people treat each other the way they do. Furthermore, I could not give my personal support to the accepted political solutions based on the notion that violence was a strictly working-class problem, and therefore a purely economic issue: the political line maintaining that men hit women because they were frustrated by their jobs, their poor housing, and their lack of money. I had seen enough middle-class women in trouble to convince me that doctors, dentists, solicitors, and Members of Parliament also indulged in bouts of violence against their women and children in sufficient numbers to make that argument invalid. In fact emotional violence is extremely common in middle-class and upper-class families, and just as damaging as physical violence.
During our staff seminars, we came to realise that we were catering to two very different needs in our Refuge. The first involved women like Sue who, for one reason or another, had married men who turned out to be violent. Once offered an opportunity to escape this situation, they would take it gratefully and leave, never to return to the violence. These we tend to call the genuine 'battered wives'. The second involved the type of woman unable to stay away from violence, however much she claimed she wanted to. She seemed doomed either to return to her violent partner eventually, or, having given him up, to move rapidly on to another violent man."

From Here: http://www.bennett.com/ptv/index.shtm

I cannot understand why men would go along with the feminist oppression of men as represented by WRD.

Why do men allow themselves to be compared with Marc Lepine who was a mass killer and mentally deranged? It is patently ridiculous to maintain that because some madman committed an atrocious crime against some women in Canada that all men are capable of similar acts.

It would be as logical to make a celebrity of Katherine Knight, the NSW abattoir worker who skinned and cooked her spouse for the children’s dinner.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/husband-cooker-loses-plea/2006/09/11/1157826847589.html

Just imagine, an annual Blue Ribbon Day to make all women feel guilty about what they might do to their menfolk, just like Katherine Knight.

Or what about Kathleen Folbigg, who over ten years killed her four children? Maybe a baby blue ribbon day for that? Should we represent that all women are capable of killing their children because one did just that?

I don’t think that men or women should allow themselves to go blindly along with the gender war that is inherent to WRD as it is promoted on the subject site and by the author and her cohorts.

The great majority of men and women respect one another and get along fine, albeit with a few minor communication problems and have no interest whatsoever in beating up one another physically or psychologically.

To common people, the feminists’ demand that all men must feel guilty for the acts of the few, is ridiculous. But then most women and men are not making a living out of creating divisions between women and men either.

Ho hum, well I'm off to a mixed gathering of men, women and children and I guess we will have lots of fun as usual.

I'd say the only reason any men support White Ribbon Day is because they, like I used to be, are simply not aware of the facts, we're living in a world where blatant lies like "domestic violence kills more women per year than breast cancer" is just thrown about like it's a given in the media. Mountains of data is simply suppressed on the subject and feminists doing whatever they can to exploit men's good nature and have female victims addressed while not addressing male victims in the immediate moment, for the last 30-40 years. It is becoming apparent that male victims or men's needs will NEVER be addressed, and that ineffective solutions based around placing 100% of the blame on men will continue, if feminists are allowed to continue unchallenged.

There are plenty of other examples, all proven complete lies, which even continue to be bandied about today without challenge in the media:

- Superbowl day is the highest day for abuse all year.
- Women are subject to domestic violence the most when they are pregnant.
- More women are killed per year by domestic violence that men were killed in the entire Vietnam war.

After 30 years of hearing things like "1 in 4 women are subject to violence", and ignoring the fact that that simply means "1 in 2 men are subject to violence", people end up thinking that 99% of violence in the world is committed against women, particularly if that is included with other domestic violence statistics, like "in some countries 69% of women are subject to domestic violence" (obviously referring to statistics from a third world country taken by feminist researchers, while the information is disseminated in first world countries, I believe it is 1.6% in Australia according to the ABS).

What gets me is it effectively makes the campaign far far more acceptable, and doesn't detract from the message at all to include male and child victims, but that is considered completely unacceptable by feminists. Wouldn't that be equality? Why that unacceptable to them, or people that claim to be against sexism?

cornflower - the situation is even worse than women simply not being subject to the same demands.

The author says that "men are getting away with murder", because the murderer in this case committed suicide, so was not subject to the justice system.

Campaigns like WRD which blame it all on men has meant that feminists are directly responsible for women ROUTINELY getting away with murder IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM, e.g. off the top of my head:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/6076112.stm

Danielle Wails had claimed she was tied up by intruders who started the fire at her Newcastle home in August 2005.

She denied the murder of Alexander Gallon but her guilty plea to infanticide was accepted after psychiatrists said she was depressed.

The 22-year-old was given a three-year COMMUNITY ORDER with a period of supervision and other requirements.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=149a2851-04eb-4ff0-ab68-4b6e9f141841&k=14964

BARRIE, Ont. - A pair of young sisters caught in the middle of their estranged parents' bitter custody feud were found murdered in an Ontario apartment early Wednesday, allegedly killed by their mother.

Sharon Lynn, whose daughter, Amanda, lives in the building and is close friend of Frances Campione, said

[... ]

''That mother needs a hug.'' <-- Because she's a murderer?

There's more up on:

http://www.kittennews.com/

Google ANDREA YATES, multiple child drowner, who N.O.W. in the US campaigned for, to "draw attention to post natal depression [ as a defence for murder ].

And on the subject of blaming men for violence causing greater violence against men:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/jail-for-teens-kerosene-attacker/2006/06/16/1149964741301.html

A MAN who doused a teenager with kerosene and set him alight in a premeditated attack spurred on by false rumours will spend at least 2½ years behind bars.

The County Court heard there were false rumours among a group of friends who frequented Greensborough Plaza, and the teenager's girlfriend wanted retribution.

I've already mentioned the woman bragging about getting away with murder to Tom Leykis:

http://www.blowmeuptom.com/archive.tl?h=57

I'll never shut up about this, whenever I hear about sexist campaigns like WRD for one.

Posted by Cornflower, Saturday, 2 December 2006 3:56:30 PM
“I cannot understand why men would go along with the feminist oppression of men as represented by WRD”

Take one look at Dr Phil – he is wealthy beyond our wildest dreams and women love him – he could get laid a thousand times over. While Phil McGraw is a particularly ugly example that actually only serves to strengthen the arguments I put forth, that is that men turn on their brothers for 2 reasons: to make money and to get laid. Dr Phil demonstrates that if you are prepared to turn ‘kapo’ you will be very well rewarded in both areas, even if you are ‘as ugly as Dr Phil’.

Men who do not actively support the dominant current paradigm can expect the active opposite, ie livelihood and lifestyle opportunities will be cut off at the knees and you have as much chance of forming a relationship as laying a golden egg.

If you want a blow by blow description of how this occurs: Warren Farrell (who authored The Myth of Male Power) gives an excellent example for the comparison of 'men who do' and 'men who dont' support the current paradigm in his fall from grace as a thrice-elected member of the National Organisation of Women (US) to the horrified and astounded owner of a real fair dinkum Feminist Fatwah.

Just like that hard old Bushie who years ago was brave enough to declare after a few rums " I'm afraid of No man , and very few women !".
Perhaps he really was .

"I decided that he did not deserve to live" (or something similar) said a woman who had admitted to lying in wait with a rifle to shoot her husband dead.

She was found not guilty of murder.

Go figure!

There is no such thing as a culture of violence in this country. there are many other countries in the world where you are much more likey to be bashed, robbed or simply murdered.

In australia we have laws which punish those who would sexually assault a woman or even bash her. so there is no culture. Otherwise these laws would not exist.

Even in the time when white anglo saxons could shoot and kill certain races without the fear of punishment, laws existed to protect women, admittedly they were laws to protect white women.

"Get into the real world and go to your local cop shop and tell them that they act in a sexist manner."

This sort of statement is nothing but manipulation. I know once coppers use to work in a sexist manner booking us blokes for speeding and letting the girls off. That has changed much to the consternation of many women.

In fact according to one copper I know, blokes are much less likely to lay charges in DV situations.

I think what many posters forget is that women are "victims" of a male dominated society and while many men do not perceive women as equals (and some women agree) depending on what is included in the definition, feminist have sought and won a legal definition of victim and female equality. Which is why we have so many contradictions in the different levels of social law. Nowhere are there laws stating or implying male equality. In criminal courts men and women are judged by different criteria and different reasoning applied. In family courts mothers are given a different value than fathers and so are the children involved.
Feminist rely on this and encourage the demonizing of the male to benifit the feminist ideology and social movement. The idea that all men must consider their behavior towards women come wrd is more to this end of demonizing men and promoting blanket blame. Feminist have not been battling for equality for the sexes. They have been fighting to reduce the social value of men so that women can have a ascention
and dominate social behaviors, thus become the social power behind society. Men bad, woman good

Cornflower, Happy Bullet, aqvarivs, Rob513264, JamesH

I agree with what you have said. Most of the feminists who malign males, who carry out gender bias, and who discriminate against males are employed by Universities.

I know of at least one University that no longer advertises for male students to enrol in their courses, and this must be a big wake up call for men and also for women who have sons. Both men and women have got to start to realise what is happening in the academic area.

Possibly the author does not even read these comments, so your comments make no difference to her, but this author comes from the University of Sydney, and the University of Sydney defines discrimination as:

- Any practice that makes a distinction between individuals or groups so as to disadvantage some people and advantage others.
- Discrimination can be 'direct' or 'indirect'.
- 'Direct' discrimination is where a person is treated less favourably because of their race, sex, pregnancy, marital status, transgender, sexual preference or orientation, disability or long term illness, age, family or carer's responsibility, social origin, political belief or lack of political belief, religious belief or lack of religious belief than a person without that characteristic in the same or similar circumstances.
- 'Indirect' discrimination results when a requirement, rule, policy or practice that appears to treat everyone the same, has a disproportionately unfair impact on particular people or groups of people when it is applied, and is unreasonable.

http://www.usyd.edu.au/eeo/harass_discrim/index.shtml

I think this article is completely outside the definition of discrimination from the University of Sydney.

Complaints about this article, or about any other article written by an author from the University of Sydney can be sent to the
Acting Manager, Harassment & Discrimination Resolution at p.lyons@eeo.usyd.edu.au

There are some organisations that do not recognize male discrimination, but eventually these organisations become known as organisations that support gender bias and support discrimination. So if the University of Sydney does not process your complaint, then it becomes known as an organisation that supports gender bias and discrimination.

"Male dominated society."

Please! This isn't a person. This is a sheep who spouts cliches. "All men are baa baa baastards" "Porn causes rape" and numerous other pathetic cliches.

Male dominated society?

Man hataing society far more likely.

HRS

there was a certain person who breeched the ethical guideliness of her profession.

A certain lecturer, I lodged a complaint with her university and the professional body.

Whilst neither the university or the professional body have ever replied to me. That person I lodged the complaint against has been very quiet.

One thing I can say is that complaint I lodged, took a lot of work spanning out to about 10 pages where I clearly demonstrated that she had breeched the ethical guidelines. It is still in my computer somewhere.

Cornflower said, “… To common people, the feminists’ demand that all men must feel guilty for the acts of the few, is ridiculous.”

Sorry, the Common People do support WRD and the attendant paradigm, check the male media-men – I bet they would not dare be seen without a White-Ribbon. But there is another issue I wanted to raise and that is the ‘sexual pressure’ on men to support the paradigm that WRD has come to represent.

If men try to present a gender-neutral paradigm in the current environment we are not only attacked by militants but also avoided by moderates. This may seem harmless enough but with both militants and moderates avoiding it condemns gender-equity men to a relationship desert. Which incidentally is also a sexual desert. Knowing how important sex is to men, women know what kind of pressure putting men in a sexual desert will produce.

It is very simple out there in the real world: toe the [mainstream]line or leave. As long as there are multitudes of men who are bounding to adopt the feminist paradigm and champion 'defenceless women' I think gender-equity guys have got Buckley’s.

Rob13264

A man who is his own man gets plenty of attention form the opposite sex. Set your own values and ethics and live by them. If that means treating all comers with respect and dignity and you are willing to listen to women you come into contact with, you will always be on a winner.

Men need to be confident in their maleness. That is different to the ridiculous extremes of drunken yobbo and new age wuss. Men should be confident in adopting their natural maleness. No limits: there are many young men who enjoy nature, sport, music, family, and in all combinations.

It is to our detriment that our society does not encourage men to share time with one another and find meaningful enjoyment from that contact. Fathers should hug their adult sons. Men of different ages should be encouraged to share time together to discuss daily events, the meaning of life or whatever. Young men should feel comfortable about going to restaurants/venues together without women. Women are too controlling and do not allow their menfolk to do what they do tyhemselves.

A failing of many young men is that they cannot think otherwise than through their penis. Overcoming that is a sign of maturity.

Yes I think that men should discover and assert their maleness. It is very obvious that the ‘masculinity’ that is forced on men by Western society limits and harms them (have a look at the chronic diseases of men, suicide rates and so on). But it would be going up the wrong gulley to try to find maleness via Western feminism which is quite flawed and negative. Why jockey for supremacy like the gender feminists anyhow, it is waste of a life.

What men need is an unapologetic discussion of maleness by some of the many men around who have lived and enjoyed life and in so doing have taken a different path to that forced on men by society. But these are quick thoughts and I am sure others could take it further.

Rob513264 - Men, uneducated on the issue, generally know a couple of things:

1. Men are stronger than women.
2. Men are more violent towards other men than women are towards other women.
3. Women are more emotionally abusive towards other women than men are towards other men.

From that they surmise that men are violent in response towards women's nagging and it isn't really acceptable. From there, being shown bogus or one-sided statistics, or being lied to about the rate can push them over the edge and make them support the campaign, perhaps with the thought, in the back of their mind that we will deal with women's nagging after the violence has been dealt with. From that they don't know a couple of things:

1) Women are equally violent as men in relationships (supressed fact). If they did they would wonder, with violence unacceptable, why that is not being dealt with as well, or why the facts are supressed.
2) Men as victims of women, whether violence or emotional abuse, is NEVER to be dealt with by the designs of feminists. Rights for women, responsibilities for men. FULL STOP.

No. 2 is the irony behind the whole thing. It won't even get those guys laid. They don't realise that guys get whipped because they pine for sex too much, and guys that are whipped.. don't get sex, just like they don't get any other needs met, or compassion full stop.

In the matriarchy, men are workhorses, who support women out of love/worship. Men's needs are irrelevant, particularly sexual ones.

In March 1938, Germany invaded Austria and started to aggressively prepare for the invasion of Czechoslovakia.

Hitler said, (paraphrasing) "This is my last requirement for territory in Europe." The leaders of England and France easily believed his words and believed that the wolf would become a vegetarian after he devoured Czech Sudetenland.

Winston Churchill: "The tragedy of World War II could have been easily avoided. Kind-hearted cowardice promoted the vicious malignancy."

Kind-hearted cowardice = whipped.

JamesH
I have made justifiable complaints to several organisations in the past regards gender prejudice and discrimination shown by their staff. Some of these organisations were Universities, and I have found that you have to specifically request that a University supplies some feedback that the complaint has been received, otherwise there will be no acknowledgement that the complaint has even been received.

Many organisations do not recognise male discrimination. An example would be the University of Sydney that the author belongs to. This University awarded an honorary doctorate to Germaine Greer in 2005, even though she has made many discriminatory comments in the press about males in the past, including the following “Men are much more trouble than they're worth.”. Obviously the University of Sydney did not recognise such comments as being gender prejudiced or discriminatory, or an attempt to demonise a gender. Instead they gave Germaine Greer a doctorate.

Women carry out domestic violence and women carry out murder, but if the word “men” is taken out of the article, and replaced with the word “women”, then most likely there would be complaint that the article was gender biased and discriminatory, or complaint that the article was not properly representative of women.

But many organisations do not recognise male discrimination, and they become gender biased in their attitudes towards discrimination. The only way to get those organisations to change their attitudes towards discrimination is through direct public complaint to those organisations.

HRS

Have you allowed a reasonable delay and then made a request under the NSW Freedom of Information Act 1989? Refer to your letter/complaint (and cite the Act) and request access to documents concerning it.

http://www.usyd.edu.au/arms/foi/

You men attacking BW & BG's article have, ironically, proved the gist of her article correct –that men’s groups aren’t helping with domestic violence, rather they are making things harder for women. Moreover, Happy Bullet et al have proved a further problem which is you all have an agenda that clearly goes way beyond what you profess.

Happy Bullet’s last post suggests that he has a problem with self-confident women. The idea that a household has to be either a matriarchal or patriarchal and, if it isn’t patriarchal, then the man is “whipped” suggests a definite dislike of women having power in the relationship. Men and women these days generally share the power indeed they best try to empower each other.

Why don't you set up a rape crisis as well as a domestic violence centre for men? Or do you seriously expect women to do that for you too. Mama’s boys?

I have only heard of a female raping a male a few times. I have seen many, many instances of domestic violence and they were nearly all men on female. There was a poor fellow given a fair bit if space in my local paper. The police prejudice I have experienced has been for males at women’s expense. Long time ago.

Happy Bullet et al you think that kind heartedness is cowardness - that men who treat their women with respect are "whipped" - well I disagree. I am sure of my position and that kind of talk just confirms my suspicions about your characters. Moreover, you are comparing Churchill’s reference to Nazi’s with women who work in rape crisis centres. Dirty.

You have failed to produce evidence of a police officer who has recommended to their brief that they not take action because of gender or a magistrate who refused to consider evidence because of gender. Lawyers, complainants, defendants etc watch police like hawks - prejudice you accuse the police of is rare and actionable.

Maybe that some men’s groups attract disgruntled divorcees looking for payback is the real problem. Care to profile your group.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10410452

Domestic violence campaigners accused of bias

Monday November 13, 2006
By Simon Collins

e.g. - "The private spat between the professors and the commission began after last year's White Ribbon Day, when commission chief executive Paul Curry said: "Almost all family violence is carried out by men on women and children.""

HRS is 100% correct on complaining about this sort of bigotry being the correct course of action. This just came out from:

http://www.mediaradar.org/alert20061204.php

RADAR drafted a resolution calling on the UN Third Committee to only "note," not "welcome" the report. The resolution was sent around the world, and within a few short weeks 118 organizations in 14 countries had endorsed it.

Alerts were issued and over a one-month period, an estimated 30,000 e-mails were sent to US ambassador John Bolton.

When the dust had cleared, the Third Committee decided to "note," not "welcome" the secretary-general's report! A change of a single word may seem insignificant, but it basically means that the Committee gave the Secretary General's report a failing grade.

As a result of this:

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/11/19/feminist-takeover-of-the-un-is-an-issue-of-national-security

The Washington times, who cited the UN report had to publish this:

http://washingtontimes.com/corrections/20061128-102228-2806r.htm

"Using a chart published in a 2005 U.N. Population Fund report – which the UN agency now says was misleading – a London Daily Telegraph article published in Nov. 13 editions of The Washington Times incorrectly stated the frequencies of wife abuse in India."

I didn't post it here, but a couple of days after this article came out, I posted on another site which lists anti-male companies to boycott, Saatchi and Saatchi, The Body Shop and Harvey Norman with the reason that they supported this campaign.

And by the way I found the website of Michael Woods, with his publications. Excellent work.

http://menshealth.uws.edu.au/publications.html

Ronnie Peters: blah blah blah. I have limited space, your bigotry, false dichotomy's and seeing things said which completely differ from what was actually said is too obvious for me to bother with it. Have a good time posting :)

Cornflower,
Thanks for this information. I may use this to get a reply from one University that has never replied to a complaint, and it has been several months.

I remember one University that did give reply after several e-mails were sent. They eventually acknowledged that a staff member had been vilifying males in a series of articles they had written in the press, but then they said that gender vilification is not illegal. Amazingly that particular University actually had its own in-house ethics committee.

You may find the following interesting from a recent Australian survey:-

“Dr Macnamara found that, by volume, 69 per cent of mass media reporting and commentary on men was unfavourable, compared with just 12 per cent favourable and 19 per cent neutral or balanced.

Some of the recurring themes in media content portrayed men as violent, sexually abusive, unable to be trusted with children, 'deadbeat dads', commitment phobic and in need of 're-construction'.”

http://www.cnet.ngo.net.au/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=20729

I believe that this negative portrayal of males is definitely not reserved for the mass media only, and much of the academic world will also try and portray males negatively.In this article, the authors do not mention female violence, so they do not give a balanced account of domestic violence.

This article would not fall into the 19% of articles written on gender issues that are balanced and non-gender biased, but would definitely fall into the 69% of articles that are gender biased, unbalanced and treats males unfavourably.

Ronnie Peters

So you would like to join a campaign that is gender biased, unbalanced and treats males unfavourably. Why would that be?

Do you think you could make some money out of it?

Ronnie a very common technique used is to accuse men's rights groups of trying to wind back the protections for domestic violence victims (female.)

This is a RED HERRING.

The vast majority of DV does not progress to homicide, although probably most do wish that their partner would just drop dead.

The type of statements you are making are simply designed to make people angry and try to shift the focus away from what most of us are trying to tell you.

Some people are not able to see the trees for the forest. In other words they are not able to move past their biased and prejudical position. In many cases it is the pot calling the kettle black.

Some are rigid concrete thinkers because of their life experinces so tend to see life only through their experiences and anything which does not match their perceptions is wrong.

Not only is it MRA's trying to expand the limited perception related to DV there are many female authors as well. Some even call themselves feminists.

Are they biased and prejudice as well?

I learnt the hard way that there are some very destructive and manipulative people out there and they dont care who they hurt. Many will only tell you what they think you want to hear.

Drugs and alcohol play a big part, so does unemployment and poor education.

If you really want to deal effectively with DV? Then stop approaching it in a piecemeal fashion and look at the much larger picture.

What will eventually happen is that the DV debate will move past the positiion you hold Ronnie, it may be next year or in fifty years time, but it will happen.

The greatest shame is that if it takes fifty years before DV is really dealt with then that is fifty years of unnecessary hurt and pain for an awful lot of people.

Posted by Cornflower, Monday, 4 December 2006 10:34:12 AM
“What men need is an unapologetic discussion of maleness by some of the many men around who have lived and enjoyed life and in so doing have taken a different path to that forced on men by society.”

These are fine sentiments however these discussions do occur and frequently but no-one in the media is willing to cover any issue brought by men unless it is men beating themselves up over the way other men treat women.

There is also a mathematical problem – there are simply not enough women around who are prepared to accept a man with balanced views as there are men who profess them. At the moment men are experiencing cultural-prejudice just as has been experienced by women, blacks, homosexuals, etc in the past.

In such an environment, normal, acceptable, reasonable behaviour is perceived as perverted, abnormal and unacceptable. It is simply that perhaps for the first time in history, straight, white, men are on the receiving end of prejudice and just like railing against any prejudice during its hay day, the protests fall largely on ears which haven't got the faintest idea what we are talking about.

Just because moderates can see our rationale doesn’t mean they are actually prepared to have relationships with us. Moderates know that Militants will ‘denounce’ any man who presents a balanced view and they know what happens to women who support denounced men. So, even most fair-minded women, who see nothing wrong with a man’s reasons, attitudes or projects will avoid him. Although many women are sympathetic to the plight of modern-men their avoidance of us creates pressure to conform to the mainstream paradigm.

Posted by ronnie peters, Monday, 4 December 2006 5:47:41 PM
“Maybe that some men’s groups attract disgruntled divorcees looking for payback is the real problem. Care to profile your group.”

Are you implying that women’s groups attracting ‘disgruntled divorcees looking for payback’ is not the real problem?

On one project I represented our small group of mostly men who occasionally pull some kind of project together which is philosophically gender neutral and in practice always concentrating on the kids. The real dysfunctional, vindictive men, of whom there are heaps (as there are dysfunctional, vindictive women) avoid us because we are not militant enough for them.

I was representing that group when I once raised the possibility of sexual discrimination being an issue over a Women-Only-Picnic (which actively discouraged attendance by men) as part of a Local Council “Peace Week” Festival.

The meeting of representatives and stakeholders at Council was comprised entirely of women except for me (so much for the Patriarchy). It was conceded that it was a fair question to raise however the committee unanimously didn’t see a problem with the picnic.

Two weeks later we had it confirmed from ‘the inside’ that a network of local women’s groups had formally boycotted any projects that were to be managed by us. Such an action makes any man in our group a pariah to any women exposed to that network even if only through the informal, if particularly effective, ‘word of mouth’.

Interestingly, despite the body language when I raised that question, which included almost every woman in the room violently launching themselves backwards in the directly-opposite direction to me, when I run across them in the street, none of them ever remembers meeting me…

Husbands and wives, girlfriends and boyfriends, brothers and sisters are needed to counter any anti-female-anti-male movement that hampers the communication between the sexes. Also our laws need to be gender neutral. We need to punish the behavior we don't want expressed in our society and encourage that which we do want and do it equally across the board regardless of race, creed, culture, or sex. Any group that is motivated to force a wedge between any element of society ought to be punished by society as a whole, a single voice. I know it's simplistic but, the truth is we are all in this together and one can not be given status or authority over any other. We are supposed to be a nation of laws not a nation of bias seeking infuence or control. We are supposed to learn from history not use it as justification for like behavior.

I keep trying to convince myself to stop posting to this thread, but the comments get more and more outrageous. Aquarius has capped it all off with this:

"We need to punish the behavior we don't want expressed in our society and encourage that which we do want and do it equally across the board regardless of race, creed, culture, or sex."

What utterly authoritarian rubbish! There is room for lots of debate about what makes conduct criminal, but I'll guarantee that the threshold question is not "behaviour we don't want expressed in our society." There's plenty of behaviour "we" don't want expressed in society, yet don't criminalise. And who is "we" anyway? One person's undesirable behaviour is another person's good night out. Such sweeping authoritarian statements deserve no more than ridicule.

I mean Aquarius, have you really though this through? Really? Or did you just post from the hip. I hope you regret it.

BTW before anyone misinterprets, I am *not* arguing that domestic violence is "behaviour we don't like but shouldn't criminalise." I'm happy for all violence, domestic or otherwise, to be unlawful. I just think Aquarius is making idiotic sweeping statements that don't bear close examination.

Anthony

ronnie "Maybe that some men’s groups attract disgruntled divorcees looking for payback is the real problem."

Maybe but do you have the integrity to ask the same question of the womens groups?

I've spent some time involved in one of the groups so I've not got vast experience but some.

Yes there are some very bitter men there and if you bothered to listen to their stories you might understand why they are so bitter.

You might also be surprised at how many dispite the most crushing blows to their lives at the hands of ex's using kids, the family court and C$A for revenge and gain are just trying to find a way to get on with their lives and make things better for others. And yes I'm aware that there are women who have been really badly treated at the hands of nasty ex's and yes I have listened to some of their stories and do have compassion for them.

You might be surprised at how quickly those rare calls for a baised system are responded to with reasoned argument for an even playing field.

You might be surprised at how many women are involved in the mens groups as they see their partners and their childrens lives harmed by a biased system that can at times leave little or no hope of things getting better.

My view is that the mens groups offer little for the genuine abusers. Those guys are not the types to be in working for a fair go for others nor are they the ones who really care what is happening to their kids. They might come for a while but find that extremist agenda's are not supported nor are abusers.

From what I've seen the groups offer a lifeline to men who's lives are being torn to bits by a system that assumes in "no fault divorce" that it is the mans fault. They provide a connection to others who will listen and have some understanding of what you are going through.

R0bert

Anthony Marinac
Wow, way to misinterpret and freely include false statements then knocking me for advocating your poor and limited understanding of the totality of my intended picture. Punish as in not to reward. I never said nor implied criminality. That was your introduction. Please don't make me responsible for your limited perceptions. "Husbands and wives, girlfriends and boyfriends, brothers and sisters are needed to counter any anti-female-anti-male movement that hampers the communication between the sexes." Is hardly authoritarian. "Any group that is motivated to force a wedge between any element of society ought to be punished by society as a whole, a single voice." Hardly authoritarian. "I know it's simplistic but,the truth is we are all in this together and one can not be given status or authority over any other." Again, hardly authoritarian.
Anthony Marinac your a bit of a git and ought not to pounce from behind your mantle of self rightiousness. Ridicule is not intellectual arguement. I don't want to post on this site but, you make me. What tripe.

There's just not enough space really, but it really is time to swing a cluebat here:

Ronnie Peters:

Hypocrisy:

"Cornflower you are also wrong to chastise feminist for supposedly not caring about the issue of women being violent to men. I’d say that they have their hands full looking after abused women."
[ Sex substitution ] : So then feminists are fine if we don't care about the reverse because we have OUR hands full and shouldn't be chastising US, like the article does?

"If men and mens’ groups “acted upon this conviction” in the way the article suggested then they would have some credibilty."
[ sex substitution ] : If feminists and feminist groups would act upon this conviction in support of battered or emotionally abused men, then they would have some credibility.

"men’s groups aren’t helping with domestic violence, rather they are making things harder for women [ by refusing to accept 100% of the blame ]"
[ sex subsitution ] : Feminists won't support a 50/50 campaign that advocates equal responsibility, so by the same logic they are making it harder for actual [ male, child and even female ] victims FAR MORE.

Black and white thinking:

Me: If a man accepts 100% blame for something he is only 50% to blame for, or other matriarchal ideals, he is whipped.
RP: "The idea that a household has to be either a matriarchal or patriarchal and, if it isn’t patriarchal, then the man is “whipped”."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

1) Patriarchal ( +infinity)
2) Hello!!
3) Matriarchal (-infinity)

It's called thinking in more than one dimension. E.G.:

1) Blaming women completely
2) Equal responsibility <-- !! [ clue here ] !!
3) Blaming men completely

Just funny:

Me: Elvis Presley acted in a way you percieve violent on television and women were attracted to him.
RP: "So then you are blaming women for having no indication that men acting like Elvis [ on television no less ] would act in a way I percieve to be violent, but finding out they would later. HOW COULD THEY HAVE KNOWN?!?"

Clue in please.

Weirdest bunch of posts I've read in a long time.
You guys are damn good haters, aren't you?
The tenor of many of these posts doesn't make me feel like it'd be safe to express an opposing opinion around some of you.
Men and women suffer at the hands of men and women. If men are often victims of women's violence then they need to follow the feminists lead and start refuges for men and run ad campaigns against DV against men. The "they" you accuse of catering to the feminists are, by and large, feminists themselves. become masculinists and do the same hard yards if you think its so unfair.
The campaigns run against male on female DV, especially on TV are often instigated by the police, having worked on a number. They have told me that the most common call out they get is not robbery or car theft but male to female DV. Challenge them on it, if you think they are lying or propagandists, but it would seem they ought to be the ones who'd know.

(Sorry people if I go over ground already covered, but going through all the posts is taking me forever.)

Ronnie,

In one of your posts you mention a bunch of myths and related facts. You also note some traits of abuser and abused. These are accurate, but the use of words male and female is interchangeable. Traits, tactics and effects of bullies are the same regardless of gender.

It is important to keep this in mind when considering the low proportion of female initiated DV in police reports. It could be argued that in addition to the problems preventing the abused (male or female,) from reporting abuse (by male or female,) men are also constrained by enduring myths about how men are just supposed to cop it if violence comes from a woman, or that such violence is ok because it comes from the oppressed- ie, violence by men is fundamentally different to violence by women because violence by men is used to reinforce control, while violence by women is a reaction to that control. It is instructive that many studies contradict the figures gained from police reports. Perhaps that’s because there are no negative consequences of reporting female initiated DV to an anonymous survey.

Regarding paedophilia in the Catholic Church, you may find it informative to research abuse committed by nuns. Such abuse is underreported, if at all, in a remarkably similar way to female DV.

Flood.

Do the social scientists and psychologists who are raising the awareness of male victims of DV not live in the real world? The number of people, male and female, on this forum who continue to raise this issue appears to be increasing. As I have argued on another thread, this appears to reflect the opinions of a sizeable proportion of Australians. Questioning feminist theory, because it does not reflect one’s own, (and the collective,) experience, is not anti-feminist. It is intellectually honest.

I’m yet to see you challenge JamesH’s comment that the studies which present DV as a male problem suffer far worse methodological problems than those which present DV as gender-neutral.

OK people get ready to jump on me because I am going to use a dreaded metaphor!

If I tease and abuse a dog and that dog turns around and bites me or other people. Who is to blame the dog or me?

I know us humans are more sophisticated than animals, well are suppose to be.

So I'll put it another way, if I continually tease and abuse another person and they respond by either shooting me or getting some else to bash me up. Who is responsible? I know in theory that we are suppose to be civilised and rational and resolve conflict in a win-win manner. but basically I assume that many people do not have conflict resolution skills.

27 June 2006 http://www.dadsindistress.asn.au/diary.html
"After many more wrangles with the ex, we finally got to see the boys - who told Bill that mummy said he didnt love them or want to see them. Drop off time - she is nowhere to be seen!. Next day more texts saying Bill has poisoned the boys and more vitriole from her.

Bill realised this was never going to end - he committed suicide by hanging himself just over two weeks ago."

this is the side of DV we don't hear about.

sleep well Ronnie Peters.

ena, "The tenor of many of these posts doesn't make me feel like it'd be safe to express an opposing opinion around some of you."

I'm not sure wether to hope you really believe that or that it's just a tactic. I want to think you believe it because you don't normally play those kind of games, I hope you don't because it's yet another sign of how effective the villification of men has been.

I've not seen any sign of threats of violence by those of us speaking out about the double standards of WRD. There are differing approaches it it but by and large we have been as polite or better than those who oppose us on this topic.

In regards to running our own add's - please have a think about the amount of taxpayer funding that has gone into the various genderised DV campaigns. Pretty hard for a group of guys who are probably mostly paying child support to match that.

Take some time and have a look at the links posted regarding research into rates of DV, if you want search Google for Dr Floods criticism of that research and ask yourself if the research that supports a genderised view of DV would stand up as well to the same type of critique.

Even if you think that DV is an 80/20 proposition (check the child abuse stats if nothing else) then it must be obvious how unbalanced the taxpayer funded response to DV is. WRD just adds to that.

It is so simple to speak out against all DV yet the ones pushing these campaigns seem unable or unwilling to do so.

R0bert

I have read with interest the way that this thread has developed and it has been very good to see flawed assumptions of WRD so thoroughly explored and I would say To the disgruntled feminists who complain about the way that the debate has gone the whole genesis of WRD was that men should take on the issue of domestic violence. The fact that it is mostly men commenting here is a n expression of men doing just that. There is no obligation for men to come to the same conclusions about the nature of the problem or possible solutions and we do not have to just blindly accept the underlying assumption imposed upon us by the Feministas who have taken this on as a project here in Australia.

Domestic Violence is a HUMAN problem that cuts across gender lines there are some damaged people, of both genders that just do not know how to relate to others without violence until that is recognized and addressed there will be NO substantial improvement in the level of domestic violence in our society .

If one day the fatherless and childless classes decide to fight their oppressor, the feminist manifesto should provide a treasure-trove of subversive tactics.

I propose April the 1st as Paternity Day. “Who’s your Daddy?” badges come to mind

(Another potentially flawed post given I’m still getting through them all.)

Going back to the legal issue of provocation, here in Victoria the Labour Government recently legislated the provocation defence away, in reaction to the Ramage case. The government presented it as doing away with an antiquated law which reflected the misogynistic attitudes of the past, and basically gave men a legal right to do away with a shrew. I found this a little cynical, and dripping in Feminist theory.

There was an article in The Age when the topic was being debated in parliament, written by some QC, can’t remember who. He noted that the provocation defence had been used in a number of quite appropriate cases by both males and females. Eg, a teenage boy who, having been sexually abused by his father all his life, retaliated and murdered his father after taunts about his manhood.

Regarding the Ramage case, details emerged later that Mr Ramage, who murdered his wife but successfully pled provocation (I think he got the charge downgraded to man-slaughter,) had a history of controlling and abusive behaviour over his wife. Thus, one could argue that feminists were able to pounce on the opportunity to remove what they perceived as being a legal relic of patriarchy. But the provocation defence was anything but. Mr Ramage’s use of the provocation defence appears very tenuous, and a cynical manipulation of a law which was supposed to protect victims of both genders. One could argue that a legal protection for male victims has been removed, while females can still use the Battered Wife Syndrome defence.

Regarding penalties for false DV accusations,

I can understand that this could reduce the abuse of AVO orders, and lend more weight to the credibility of convictions, but I think it may also deter genuine victims, both male and female, from prosecuting. If the standard of proof for DV conviction or AVO grants is raised, is there a need to impose penalties for false accusations? Such a move may be unnecessary and counterproductive.

Alternative opinions to both ideas welcome.

To trivialise and downplay domestic violence against women is to trivialise and downplay domestic violence against men. It undermines the seriousness of domestic violence.

JamesH : “ Some are rigid concrete thinkers because of their life experinces so tend to see life only through their experiences and anything which does not match their perceptions is wrong. “
That applies to you too. You have no evidence that police and magistrates are gender biased and prejudiced. Your concrete thinking refuses to acknowledge the real situation.

You and the rest of your group have resorted to personal attack of myself and misrepresentation of what I have said. This is usually the way that domestic violence is exacerbated when people stray from the problem because their perceptions are challenged.

Domestic violence section in ABS indicates that the problem of domestic violence against women by men is very real. Given that “the White Ribbon Campaign is an international organisation that encourages men to speak out in support of the elimination of violence against women”, through my experiences, research ,reading, I think that this will reduce domestic violence.

You all seem biased against women's groups - just read the above posts. For instance: I mention pedaphilia and Dozer’s gender specific response: “Regarding paedophilia in the Catholic Church, you may find it informative to research abuse committed by nuns. Such abuse is underreported, if at all, in a remarkably similar way to FEMALE DV. “ (my empahisis)

HRS says: “So you would like to join a campaign that is gender biased, unbalanced and treats males unfavourably. Why would that be? “ No. That is why I would steer clear of men’s groups who devote most of their energy to attacking people who support eliminating domestic violence against women.

I think it best that men be kept well clear of rape crisis centres and domestic violence refuges. That is just good psychology. Most men with compassion and respect for their fellow humans in crisis would understand this. If that is bias then I can wear it. If men need these facilities then they should be provided.

Happy Bullet says: “ So then feminists are fine if we don't care about the reverse because we have OUR hands full and shouldn't be chastising US, like the article does.” HB, men’s groups are undermining women’s help groups. You have confirmed the article’s gist which noted this trend.

Dozer says: “ In one of your posts you mention a bunch of myths and related facts.” No just facts and opinions.

The “rule of thumb” hasn’t been proved a myth.

“Edward Foss, in his Biographical Dictionary of the Judges of England of 1864 says that to Buller “is attributed the obnoxious and ungentlemanly dictum that a husband may beat his wife, so that the stick with which he administers the castigation is not thicker than his thumb”, but says he can’t find any evidence Buller said it. But the Dictionary of National Biography and other standard works say firmly he did, as did contemporary biographies.”

So it is a disputed fact. It certainly doesn’t make the treatment of women in the old patriarchal societies acceptable. You mythed the point.

Dozer: “Men are also constrained by enduring myths about how men are just supposed to cop it if violence comes from a woman.” Yes. When a police officer attends a domestic violence situation if the male has a black eye and is clearly battered then the police will act. If he makes a complaint police are obliged to act. If he/she choose to not lay charges, then he/she is unwise. I think that any person assaulted needs to follow through. Police avoid laying charges because of "he said - she said". Most cases that reach court are serious and have a history of violence.

JamesH says: “Bill realised this was never going to end - he committed suicide by hanging himself just over two weeks ago."

this is the side of DV we don't hear about.

sleep well Ronnie Peters. “

Do you resort to emotional blackmail in your other relationships?

Horror stories aren't gender specific.

RObert says: “… we have been as polite …” RObert that is a biased reading

Both men and women need to be concerned with where the Australian Law Reform commission is headed with its initiatives on gender. Its considerations are relevant to some of the matters being discussed in this thread.

My criticism is not so much of the Commission as such but the lack of information, explanation and consultation with the general community. It is understandable if the community feels that democracy has been lost and faceless ideologues and cliques have an inordinate effect on the direction of government policy.

We should be even more concerned because most of the regulation that affects us was never scrutinised by Parliament but was drafted, approved and implemented by bureaucrats acting under broad delegation of ministerial powers. There is also the interpretation of regulation to consider. These unelected, faceless bureaucrats are not directly accountable to parliament as are our elected representatives.

It is possible - as has been seen (by way of example) in land use and environmental matters - to make far-reaching and almost irreversible changes over time by stealth so that unintended consequences (ie by elected legislators) become inevitable. There are elites who fervently believe they know best, even if the community disagrees.

There is no valid reason (apart from their own convenience) why community consultation is not attempted by commissions of inquiry and bureaucrats contemplating change to regulations or their interpretation and there are well tested robust models available for such consultation (use Google). The community should be demanding participation.

Of course there will be those who object to community participation in policy formulation but maybe in time they will be found to have other, less publicised agendas that are not necessarily in the public interest.

ronnie - "RObert that is a biased reading "

Possibly but I can honestly say that I try very hard to be impartial about that kind of stuff. You might consider the possibility that the bias sits somewhere else.

I'm getting lost between various threads touching on similar themes but if you been following the same discussions you will notice that I've disagreed with others who attack all feminists over this issue (and ignore the patriachs in our midst). I would hope that I'm not so one eyed in my views that bias becomes a significant issue.

Time to have an honest look at where the bias sits ronnie.

R0bert

Don't tell me you still don't get it ronniepeters,

Reverse the sexes (again):

"men’s groups are undermining women’s help groups. You have confirmed the article’s gist which noted this trend."

Women's groups are undermining men's help groups. You have confirmed the utter hypocrisy of which feminists have been accused.

Feminist groups are WORSE because they point the finger at the other side 100%.

Undermining women's groups, by no means, extends to undermining victims of domestic violence. On the contrary.

The charge against "women's groups" is: They are not handling the issue in a way that will see results, for men and children directly, and in fact even for women. Women's groups have lied about the issue, they continue to lie, and they continue to address incorrect causes. For that they certainly deserve to be undermined. The undermining of women's groups actually aids the cause for domestic violence victims.

Feminists' idea that domestic violence has the primary cause of "patriarchy", completely dismisses men as victims entirely. This implies that violence by men is used for the purposes of control and violence by women against men is "courageous self-defence", or "acting out against an oppressor". Feminists are justifying domestic violence.

Furthermore, by pointing to the cause as "male oppression", feminists not only ignore the primary cause of domestic violence: Mutual conflict, but they also undermine victims caused by low socioeconomic status. This prevents victims caused by poverty to be aided correctly. Not only that, but victims caused by alcoholism, borderline personality disorder, lack of conflict resolution skills etc. etc. etc.

The feminist involvement in domestic violence is not even about domestic violence. It is about white middle class women bullying and manipulating white middle class men. It's pathetic and the issue needs to be handed over to a far less biased and self-serving movement.

For all you who deny female violence, based on control or dominance, I came across even more actual documented evidence today. A kid taped one of his mother's temper tantrums:

http://media.putfile.com/Why-I-Moved

Ronnie Peters,
I am a male but according to many members of the media I am also “violent, sexually abusive, unable to be trusted with children, 'deadbeat dads', commitment phobic and in need of 're-construction'.”

http://www.cnet.ngo.net.au/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=20729 the

Many members of the academic world also want to portay me in this way, but the main reason why so many people in the media and in the academic world want to portray me and other males in this way, is because they can presently make money from it. Some of them even earn a living by portraying males in this way.

The authors of this article also want to portray me as being a murderer, so as a male, I am now “violent, sexually abusive, unable to be trusted with children, 'deadbeat dads', commitment phobic and in need of 're-construction'.”, and a “murderer”.

As a male, I have full rights to resist being classified or portrayed in this way.

My second question to you was “Do you think you could make some money from it?”

If you think that you can make some money by joining this White Ribbon Day campaign, then I think you will be sadly mistaken. Instead, there is the real possibility that the WRD will be asking you to chop off your arm or throw yourself under a bus, to show your complete support for the campaign. If you don’t want to do that, then there is the real possibility that you will be asked to give your money to the WRD, to show your complete support for the campaign.

So I don’t think you will be making any money by joining this insidious, macabre and gender prejudiced campaign.

“You blokes please go to anger-management. There ya’ go girls start whining like the mens’ groups: “Where’s our anger-management programs?” The men are too busy blaming others for their own failures to be constructive.”

“Get into the real world and go to your local cop shop and tell them that they act in a sexist manner. You tell them that, for instance, despite a victim of domestic violence being bashed in gross disproportion to the provocation”RP

“You men attacking BW & BG's article have, ironically, proved the gist of her article correct –that men’s groups aren’t helping with domestic violence, rather they are making things harder for women. Moreover, Happy Bullet et al have proved a further problem which is you all have an agenda that clearly goes way beyond what you profess.”RP

“Maybe that some men’s groups attract disgruntled divorcees looking for payback is the real problem. Care to profile your group.”RP

EMOTIONAL BLACKMAIL, funny isn't it when one person accuses another of using the same technique that they are using. I think it's called 'negging' to accuse someone of doing something that they aren't doing. This is manipulation.

Me? I love to analyse and solve puzzles and to understand what is going on, to see the bigger picture.

Sadly according to Erin Pizzey that chance was lost 30 years ago when radical feminists took over the DV industry. So we are already 30 years behind what could have been the most benefical changes to human society for centuries.

I do sleep well, Ronnie Peters.

Posted by dozer, Tuesday, 5 December 2006 2:21:31 PM

[ To Michael Flood: ] "I’m yet to see you challenge JamesH’s comment that the studies which present DV as a male problem suffer far worse methodological problems than those which present DV as gender-neutral."

His claims about the methodology are false. I'll put an example of Flood's enormous whoppers about the methodology from:

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

Next to statements made in the author's paper, paying particular attention to the erroneous criticisms section, at:

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CTS44G.pdf

[Flood] "Firstly, it leaves out important forms of violence, such as sexual assault, choking, suffocating, scratching"
[CTS] "The Physical Assault scale, like all the CTS maltreatment scales, has subscales for less severe acts of violence, such as slapping and throwing things at a partner, and more severe acts such as punching, kicking, and choking. The Sexual Coercion scale has a subscale for insisting, a subscale for threatening, and a subscale for physically forcing sex."

[Flood] "They do not tell us whether they were a single incident, or part of a pattern of violence. They do not tell us whether the act was intended to hurt the other person; a joking kick or a slapped hand are counted the same as a violent kick or blow to the face."
[CTS] "The CTS2 questions are presented in pairs. The first question in the pair asks the respondent to indicate how often they carried out each item in the referent period. The second asks how often the partner carried out each behavior. The response categories ask for the number of times each action occurred during the past year, ranging from "Never" to "More than 20 times." Every scale of the CTS provides data on the frequency of the acts of maltreatment ..."

The things he says the CTS does not measure are actually KEY measurements of the CTS. He's BLATANTLY lying. The CTS has no such methodological flaws.

My original post was ~600 words long and I had to cut it, rest assured there is plenty more B.S. just in the methodological flaws subsection.

Compare the two articles yourself.

Aquiarius,

If you were talking about withholding of reward rather than punishment, then your post makes (slightly) more sense and is, at least, not authoritarian. But you should have said so. "Punishing" is an entirely different concept to "withholding reward." You can't blame me for responding to what you said, even if what you said was different to what you meant.

As for criminality, following from the above, when our society punishes (and this was the concept you expressed) it does so through the criminal law. Hence, while I used the word for the first time, the concept came from your posting.

Anthony

People who are hurt do hurtful things in return. It may be a cliche. Does that lessen it's truth? DV (all violence) is asexual. To give it a sex takes it out of the psychiatric realm and politicizes it. Those who exercise DV ( or any violent behavior) need psychiatric care. Education. They need to learn other (non-violent) methods to use in times of confrontation. Not political empowerment of one sex over the other. Some women behave violently towards other women. Some men behave violently towards other men. Those same individuals regardless of sex act just as violently towards the opposite sex. It's the nature of their behavior, not the nature of their sex.
Violent 4 a : emotionally agitated to the point of loss of self-control <became violent after an insult>.
Becoming emotionally agitated is not an act of sex nor can it be defined by sex. Pointing fingers never solved any issue and creating a defensive atmosphere only contributes to the already "emotionally agitated". If two gays are arguing and one hits the other, how is the blame appointed? Is it by sex or by sexual orientation?

Anthony Merinac
Our society has many forms of punishment. One aspect of the word punishment is -loss that serves as retribution. Punish-to impose a penalty. Crime and criminality are specific sections under social law, not all social law is directed towards criminality. We also punish some distasteful antisocial behavior by not giving it official recognition. We don't outlaw it, ie. gangs.
Why don't you contribute to this thread with your opinion of the topic under review. Pouncing and playing at semantics is so punk man. Disagree with me if that is your honest opinion and I will take no offense. Singling out a word to use to belittle the totality of a statement of opinion is just juvenile. It reflects psychological or intellectual immaturity.

Happy Bullet,

Thanks for the info. I’ll do some reading. It seems Flood has no intention of engaging criticism directly.

Ronnie Peters,

The responses we get from you are quite astounding. You appear to completely ignore context, and, as aqvarivs has rightly accused Anthony Merinac of doing, focus often on single words and twist their meaning beyond all recognition.

For example, my comment about abuse committed by nuns in the Catholic Church was in response to your ridiculous accusation against JamesH that he was motivated by religious zeal, rather than a genuine quest for justice. You then attack JamesH’s imaginary argument with reference to paedophilia committed by the Catholic Church. Given that you appear to be ignoring the issue of abuse committed by females, I felt it was safe to assume that your reference to this paedophilia was made only in the context of abuse committed by male priests. Thus, in bringing up the subject of abuse committed by nuns, I was showing that even in the Catholic Church, the abuse committed is gender-neutral in nature.

Indeed any reference I make to DV, abuse, violence, are in gender neutral terms. I highlight the way in which DV and abuse committed by females is suppressed because feminist organisations, the media, and campaigns such as WRD present the issue of DV and abuse in a gendered manner- ie, they focus on violence committed by males, and ignore violence committed by females.

Peters employs a cynical tactic, whereby those attempting to de-gender the debate on DV are in turn accused of gendering the debate.

If the level of violence committed by females was miniscule, you may still be able to argue that you are right to criticise us for using it as a diversion to avoid dealing with the issue of male violence. But as has been constantly shown by others on this forum, and what you constantly avoid acknowledging, is that a huge body of evidence suggests that at the very least, DV committed against males by females makes up a sizeable proportion of all DV in Western countries,

JamesH the things I mentioned were not comparable to you blaming a poster, myself, for a man, Bill, committing suicide. No doubt it will come out the end of your rumour mill that Ronnie Peters caused Bill’s death. Low tactic JamesH - says a lot about you. You need to grow up and take a long hard look at yourself – maybe your apparent bitterness is clouding your perspective and behaviour. Some posters attitudes towards feminists and the article in question have been unhelpful, irrelevant and unfair.

Here’s advice from Virginia Woolf.

“It was a thousand pities that the woman who could write like that, whose mind was tuned to nature and reflection, should have been forced to anger and bitterness. But how could she have helped herself? I asked, imagining the sneers and the laughter, the adulation of the toadies, the scepticism of the professional poet. She must have shut herself up in a room in the country to write, and been torn asunder by bitterness and scruples perhaps, though her husband was of the kindest, and their married life perfection.”

Follow VW’s advice and put your bitterness aside and don’t allow your mind to be forced to anger.

For instance: had you all set aside your venom and ego - you may have noticed that the ABS has no starts for male victims of DV. No nasty conspiracy just a cultural thing. You may have even viewed “opponents” as genuine enquirers instead of an enemy.

The authors and I use our real names- we don’t have a public self and a private self – what you see is what you get. Your non-de-plume affords you the ability to slander, smear and behave foolishly without consequence –without people knowing the real you. You have taken child-like offence and retaliated at genuine enquiry and opinion. You have confirmed my concerns rather than shown where I was wrong.

JameH you say you sleep well. I can see why. You have an apparent limited sense of justice. This orchestrated attack on my person and motives says a lot about certain men’s groups.

RObert for a sensible and reasonable approach please go to:

http://www.austdvclearinghouse.unsw.edu.au/topics/rtf_files/Men_as_Victims.rtf

This paper says that “further analysis of men’s experiences of abuse is required…”

The authors conclusion:

"Clearly, men’s experiences as victims of domestic violence, either in heterosexual or gay relationships, are quite different from the experiences of women. Analysis needs to focus on the experiences of men in their own right and to not fall into the trap of asserting that men are just as likely to experience violence and abuse as women. It is recognised that men’s experiences of abuse are insufficiently acknowledged and the challenge for those making criticisms is to conduct research to improve men’s access to supports. It is evident from the current discourse on this issue that future research could look to further understand the contextual, power and impact differences between men’s experiences and women’s experiences of partner violence in heterosexual and same-sex relationships. Research methodology that results in material being used inappropriately to substantiate a particular viewpoint about violence can only create division and does nothing to inform the field about the complexities involved."

I think men’s groups need to shift away from the adversarial approach and start a positive campaign to bring their problems foreword without the negative attacks on women’s groups. This has been my position from the start and vitriol directed at myself and attempt to demonise me for holding this view suggests an agenda other than eliminating domestic violence against men and women.

Why don’t you all put a sensible and logical submission together and send to

clearinghouse@unsw.edu.au ? They have requested helpful information from DV victims.

You won’t get far unless you take a mature positive approach and I suggest you find a men's group that is driven by genuine concern rather than vindictiveness and oneupmanship. I make this assessment on the attitude and behaviour of posters on this thread.

RObert et al: that the general population supposedly portrays men in a particular way hasn't influenced my thinking.

FMI go to

http://www.austdvclearinghouse.unsw.edu.au/topics.htm

“Deal with the faults of others as gently as with your own.”

Henrich.

Best wishes.

cont...

and at best is committed at the same rate. Thus, a campaign focusing only on violence committed by males does not deal with the problem of DV and violence in general, and is in fact discriminatory.

My apologies to others on this thread who have basically said the same thing, but until Peters actually engages this argument directly, we will keep having to spell it out. It constantly amazes me how those arguing in favour of WRD continually refuse to even acknowledge this argument. I have read about academics who have tried to raise the issue of the gender neutral nature of DV who have confronted the same problem.

Peters and Flood have variously described opponents of WRD as being anti-feminist, anti-equality, misogynist, rage-aholics, and cynical abusers who either perpetuate or cannot face their own crimes. They have erroneously argued that research pointing to the gender-neutral nature of DV is flawed methodologically, and refuse to acknowledge its size, (let alone its existence.) And they refuse to acknowledge rebuttals to these arguments.

It has been argued before that this refusal to acknowledge that the other side even has a point a key tactic of feminism, and we are experiencing it at first hand.

Regarding Peters’ accusations of bullying behaviour, (another diversionary tactic on his behalf,) I would repeat what I have argued on another thread- It is nigh on impossible to bully someone engaged in a debate over the internet. There is no physical presence to reinforce verbal intimidation. Verbal machine-gunning is useless, as when responding to a written argument, no matter how extreme its level of invective, the respondent always has time to analyse the argument, cool down if necessary to avoid an emotional response, and draft and redraft a rebuttal.

Regarding “myths and related facts.” Facts and opinions. Iran Iraq. So what.

I agree with what was written in that post. (Could it be that you cannot even handle the thought of someone such as myself agreeing in principal to something you have said?) The point I made was that the words male and female were interchangeable.

Peters,

Basically that paper makes the same erroneous criticisms that Flood makes, which is dealt with in the CTS author's paper at:

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CTS44G.pdf

but is even more nitpicky, stating that because the CTS ranks acts of violence, it therefore is not "really really really specific like it needs to be". It's an obviously lame attempt at discrediting the most well refined research methodology in the field. The places feminists get THEIR data is FAR more unreliable.

It also makes the claim that men do not "feel" as threatened as women. Really quantifiable, and objective as to actual abuse.

Most of the paper attempts to JUSTIFY FEMALE VIOLENCE AGAINST MEN by saying that the CTS doesn't take into account the supposed context of patriarchy that the violent acts (according to feminists, with ZERO data behind them) occur in, therefore the 50/50 figure surveys taken with it are to be disregarded because violence against men is about
control and violence by women is "courageous self defence against oppression".

From the references they used (they even used Flood), you can see that feminists have once again hijacked the discussion on domestic violence. Not surprising considering the DV industry is basically made up of feminists.

This "patriarchy" thing is the realm of radical feminists. I was shocked when I first heard they actually thought that and thought that feminists had moved past something so ridiculous. Not in the DV industry it seems.

Does anyone here not find it in the slightest bit contradictory that in this supposed "context of patriarchy", feminists have completely dominated and institutionalised the area of male/female relationships in which government intervention is seen to be required?

At least you can forget about getting any help or sympathy from men as soon as they hear what your theory on the cause of domestic violence is, given that it an obvious ridiculous attempt to demonise men and justify female violence and emotional abuse.

Ronnie Peters
As a male, I should be carrying out domestic violence, rape and it now appears that I should also be carrying out murder. This is how I am being portrayed by the media, and also by a number of University academics such as Dr Bronwyn Winter.

But at present it would be rather difficult for me to carry out domestic violence, rape and also murder, because the 2 other members of the family are presently visiting relatives in another town during the school holidays.

So to live up to my stereotyped reputation, I’ll have to figure out how to carry out domestic violence, rape and also murder, when there is no one else in the house.

Yourself and the authors speak about “men’s rights groups”. The authors say that there is a “proliferation” of these men’s right’s groups. The authors are unlikely to name them, so could you actually name them.

I’ve only heard of 2 groups that support men’s rights in the whole of Australia, and they’ve been around for over 10 years.

So if you want to talk about “men’s rights groups”, could you name them please.

At present I only belong to a P&C association, but if there is a “men’s rights group” in my local area, I might be interested in joining it. In those groups I might find like minded people who are totally fed up with the way the media, domestic violence organisations and University academics are portraying me as being a domestic violence perpetrator, rapist and now murderer.

"JamesH the things I mentioned were not comparable to you blaming a poster, myself, for a man, Bill, committing suicide. No doubt it will come out the end of your rumour mill that Ronnie Peters caused Bill’s death. Low tactic JamesH - says a lot about you. You need to grow up and take a long hard look at yourself – maybe your apparent bitterness is clouding your perspective and behaviour. Some posters attitudes towards feminists and the article in question have been unhelpful, irrelevant and unfair."

This is hysteria Ronnie and manipulation.

Ronnie you accuse mens groups which I do not belong to for making things more difficult for women.

This is a similar tactic used by feminists in order to try and discount any discussion or exploration of the issues that men's groups try to raise. Such as faulty research and predujical, biased attitudes.

"I think men’s groups need to shift away from the adversarial approach and start a positive campaign to bring their problems foreword without the negative attacks on women’s groups."

The last thirty or fourty years have not the feminist approach been adversarial? And have not men been constantly and consistently been portrayed in a negative manner.

Is not saying that mens groups want to wind back or reduce the protections for DV victims a NEGATIVE attack?

To be honest, all I want is truth and honesty.

Ronnie please read my first two posts before you start FLAMING the internet.

Imagine if for the last 30 years domestic violence was dominated by radical misogynists and the following are true:

1) The fact that women are more emotionally abusive towards other women is constantly held up as proof women are abusive and violent.

2) Women are routinely carted off to mental institutions for "irrational nagging", as a result of men deciding to call the police and telling them they "felt harassed".

3) There is a multitude of government agencies devoted to helping men get past constant nagging and violence and offer counseling and accommodation services for men wanting to get away from their abusive wives. No parallel services exist for women.

4) There are television campaigns against abuse featuring women saying things like "well I was just trying to tell him he needs to bring in more money and he just started ignoring me, so I gave him a slap, just trying to keep him in check."

5) Blatant falsehoods are casually thrown around in the media like "Women abuse husbands when they are sick more, because she resents him for not working as hard as possible, and the soaps are on."

6) All abuse is blamed on the idea of "matriarchy" where women parasitically abuse men, who work all day to support women sitting at home, or are in jobs gained purely through equal opportunity quotas, spending their and their husbands money on themselves, and require violence and abuse to reinforce this parasitism.

7) Studies done using tortuously prepared methodology indicate that men and women abuse one another at roughly similar rates - but this is brushed aside and suppressed.

8) Men insist that women take responsibility for their collective abuse against men and have a "black bandana day" to signify their support for abused men, and condemnation of abusive women.

9) When women bring up concerns about their own victimisation, they are told they are impeding men's groups from protecting abuse victims, so therefore are trying to support women's abuse.

How would you feminists feel about that?

Congratulations, you've just found out how men feel about White Ribbon Day.

ronnie, if that article was what you consider a "sensible and reasonable approach " I'm some what astounded.

It is riddled with lies in it's claims regarding firstly the non-existance of studies showing that men are the victims of DV at similar rates to women and then in it's claims regarding the contents of those studies.

It applies a different set of standards to studies which say what they want to hear to those which don't (eg studies conducted in female only DV shelters don't appear to be criticised for showing that most of the reported DV was against females but Headey's research was criticised because some victims were in shelters at the time and not surveyed).

Take the time to read the Headey, Scott and de Vaus paper (http://www.ruralhealth.utas.edu.au/padv-package/readings/reading1-3-5.pdf)

~~ quote
To sum up:
(1) 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.
(2) Men and women report experiencing about the same levels of pain and need for medical attention resulting from domestic violence.
(3) Violence runs in couples. In over 50% of partnerships in which violence occurred both partners struck each other.
(4) 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.

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.

~~ end

R0bert

Dozer. You need to consider the context. The link I attended was a religious site (Catholic) with extreme and ideological propaganda “that was religious zealots turning back the clock.” So I suggested it would be better, “spending [their] time getting rid of paedophilia in the Catholic Church instead of trying to develop an Islam-like religious caliphate. That is what these responses are mostly…“ What was I supposed to think being sent to that rubbish?

Also consider the broader context.
“Happy Bullet said:’Someone cited Elvis Presley as "violent" in movies. He was a sex symbol. This is not isolated. The real irony… is that women appear more attracted to ‘violent’ men. How does that prevent violence, instead of reward it?’” I responded: “… That is also like saying that parents send their kids to a Catholic School because they want to reward paedophile priests.’” That is the true context - to make a comparison between two situations. Note Happy Bullet’s gender specificity.

Dozer says: “Any reference I make to DV, abuse, violence, are in gender neutral terms. No they are not.” A Nun is female and Catholic priests are males. However, both are similar to domestic violence situations in that the perpetrator is harming a vulnerable person. And also because your position is that of a male.

Regarding Peters’ accusations of bullying behaviour, (another diversionary tactic on his behalf,)…” Gee I am bastard in your eyes. Yes I mentioned “ vitriol directed at myself and attempt to demonise” but I never said anything about being physically attacked. Show me where I mentioned “bullying behaviours” and where I claimed you gave me a physical injury over the internet. Fuzzy logic.

HRS says ““Do you think you could make some money from it?”

Do you make all your assumptions based on your prejudices? Did you come to that conclusion based on what? It fits your schema of your internet enemy? Can’t you believe that some of us are sick of abuse of women by certain men. You “issue” police aren’t going to goad me into changing which issues I support

Happy Bullet says : “At least you can forget about getting any help or sympathy from men as soon as they hear what your theory on the cause of domestic violence is, given that it is an obvious ridiculous attempt to demonise men and justify female violence and emotional abuse. “ “My theory”- you mean the one you made up. You say: “forget about help and sympathy from men”. Conditional acceptance - predictable - and all men agree with you? Spin deadly do you? You say I: “Demonise men and justify violence and emotional abuse…” No I don’t- but you lot do.

You lot like to tell people what they’ve said with your own spin on it. That way you can justify your unreasonableness. Other blogs ban this but OLO moderators are fairly catholic in their judgements.

RObert “ used 5 to 1 figures earlier. These are from the 1996 ABS report. The report RObert directed me to says that more research is needed and that one report doesn’t overturn the current figures –so not gospel. Also it doesn’t mesh with what police reports say is happening on the ground in the suburbs.

And it doesn’t change my opinions. Indeed, I think that 100 to 1 is more likely. I am talking of hard-core violence where the women gets a regular kicking and lives in fear My life experiences lead me to wanting to stop violence against women. Men can more easily take care of themselves and I wish them well. Carry on as you must but I won’t be turning my back on honest efforts of people like Bronwyn and Betty.

RObert you hide behind that non-de-plume to perhaps lie about your ex-wife and manipulate OLO posters (using HRS et al’s logic). I wouldn’t be taking your word for it now that I have seen how unreasonable and bloody minded you can be. I offered an olive branch you spat it back. Feel powerful now? RObert is ”‘astounded” - more like unreasonable. “Astounded”, me too.

The wreckage because of men’s violence to women is more than you’ll ever know

Ronnie Peters

I am a bit bemused by the fear and loathing with which you and some radical feminists regard ‘mens groups’. Have you ever looked at any? I cannot see anything but good in these two examples, taken from what popped up on screen.

http://www.manhood.com.au/

http://www.mhwaq.org.au/

I would be most interested to find out if anyone has any objections to the content of the sites or their aims. There is nothing negative about women and in fact it is all constructive. Where specifically would you find fault with them? This is not to invite a rant about any 'odd' sites on the Net because there are scads of man-hating sites too. Let's be reasonable and practical and try to move forward.

Asigning sex and playing the numbers game, manufacturing responsibility and justification, takes DV out of the realm of psychiatry, which deals with mental, emotional and behavioral disorders. DV is not an issue of sex but one of behavior exhibited by people who do not have the mental or verbal tools, education, or personal fortitude to step back and re-evaluate just what is frustrating their personal sense of legitimacy.
Name calling by either sex only continues to highlight DV as a condition in need of social and personal education. DV is a sign of personal helplessness. It's a cry for help. Intervention needs to be equal and across the board any other response is sexism and will only contribute to the continuation of DV. DV should not be criminalized but rather courts should mandate and have available Psychiatrist to do home visits with full family participation. In the fire that is DV the family integrity is consumed.

I have been watching the comments posted ever since Bronwyn Winter and her swag of academic cronies decided to use the Alleged Murder/Suicide in Townsville as a poster case for Domestic Violence and an ignorant attack on White Ribbon Day…What insults me is that I am an academic, and I’m also the sister of the “Alleged Perpetrator.” The situation that my family is now trying so bravely to deal with has been compounded by the irreverent and blatant untruths published about my brother in the media and the male witch hunt that has ensued as a result of the Feminists climbing aboard this tragedy with a political agenda to furthering their own myopic career paths with no consideration to objective critical analysis. If one was to critically analyze my brothers work ethic and commitment to the community you would find a man who dedicated his life to all facets of social justice, particularly, the protection of children, women and men who have been abused by life and the legal system, the Victims of Crime, the Murder Support Group and founded the Townsville ‘Suicide Support Group”. This man worked literally 24/7 towards the collective “good” of the community and there was no gender bias reflected in his actions toward who he helped. My brother was a victim in life of childhood sexual and physical abuse but when he needed the system it let him down because he was male..Go figure.. The rhetoric of the Feminists claiming that all men are perpetrators of violence against women is outright bull: it is sexist, discriminatory and biased. The negative and derogatory comments aimed against men further entrenches the divide between both genders finding a common ground to work with. The growing trend of verbal and physical abuse toward men is exactly what it is “Abuse” as it is fairly labeled regarding women victims. Time to “grow up” Feminists and be proactive in finding solutions rather than continue the negative and derogatory tirade against the men who are busting their gut to do right in a system that continually poos on all victims and survivors.

I'm sick of the level of misandry and sexism that is running rampant in our society now. The television advertisements are an exercise in humiliation and for one, they have no effect on me than to make me disagreeable and convince me of this institutional hate. In cases where the violence is a pattern of repetition (a lot of cases), the women chose to stay with their man rather than end it. This is about personal responsibility in most cases. If I was ever assaulted by my female partner on a consistent basis I will end it. Not doing so and suffering it shows how little self respect these women have.

ronnie, "The wreckage because of men’s violence to women is more than you’ll ever know "

Possibly but at least I'm willing to acknowledge the harm and speak against it. I doubt that any of us has a clear knowledge of the harm done by DV regardless of the gender of the perpetrator. What I won't do is shut my eyes to the harm done to a substantial portion of the victims.

The report I pointed to is just one report but there are others, there have been links posted to others on these various threads recently. It's true that one study does not overturn a long history of lies and deceit but the authors do make it clear that they are very confident in some key findings and that the main concern with the rate of harm finding is that they find it hard to believe.

If you want to make a difference to views on this topic please provide details to a study which has taken clear steps to remove bias in it's data collection and analysis (and outlines those steps) and which supports your views. One that does not start with an underlying assumption that the overwhelming majority of DV is committed by men. Possibly one where the authors started out expecting a different outcome (and that claim is reasonable based on their other work). One where the authors don't appear to have a history of promoting a particular view of DV or gender issues.

Have a look at the info about the authors of the study I pointed to

David de Vaus has a site at http://users.bigpond.net.au/david-devaus/My-Papers/my-papers-index.htm#Determinants%20of%20Australian%20Mother's%20Employment

Dorothy Scott has references all over the place and appears to be one of Australia's premier experts in child protection. See an intro at http://www.ianpotter.org.au/6-0_pubs/6-02-01-dscott.html .

Bruce Heady - http://melbourneinstitute.com/people/bheadey/

You could also look into Strauss, M. and Gelles, R., and Steinmetz, S.K and their work.

R0bert

Tommie

I am sorry to hear about your brother.

Having once been on the inside of a story I know how the media distort the real picture. I remember I felt like I was reading about another story with the same names. If it wasn't for the names I would have thought that I was reading about a totally different and separate story. A few facts matched but that was it.

Take care of yourself Tommie and be kind to yourself.

Regards
James

Ronnie Peters: This is pretty ridiculous, but at least it shows men what sort of person they are encouraging if they wear a white ribbon..

RP: "“My theory”- you mean the one you made up.

Take responsibility for what you are saying. You said the report you linked to at the DV clearinghouse was 'reasonable'. From that we can logically conclude that you think that the theory of "the cause of domestic violence is patriarchy", claimed within the report is reasonable.

Or are you backtracking and that article is unreasonable now?

RP: "Conditional acceptance - predictable"

Good. What is it that you want: UNCONDITIONAL acceptance? - predictable. Yeah because you're so trustworthy, for no apparent reason. (??)

RP: "You say I: “Demonise men and justify violence and emotional abuse…” No I don’t- but you lot do."

I fail to see any logic in that accusation:

You: Men are 100% to blame for domestic violence. (Demonising men)
You: A paper that says the primary cause of domestic violence is patriarchy, that context should be taken into account when considering claims of 50/50 abuse. (Demonising men, justifying women's abuse of men as "self defence against patriarchal oppression")

Us: Men and women have equal responsibility for domestic violence. (uhh ... is that demonising women?)
Me: Domestic violence has causes such as "relationship problems", "mutual combat", "poverty", "poor negotiation skills" and is wrong no matter the gender (I fail to see how this justifies domestic violence).

I'm demonising *feminists*, but then that would be a response to their ignoring women's violence against men and children and practically encouraging women to be abusive towards men and men to be abusive towards other men, and ignoring women victims of domestic violence caused by poverty, borderline personality disorder, alcholism and more, just to advance their political ideology, so I'd say that's a good thing.

You are quite ridiculous Peters, but keep going, men can review your bigotry and decide whether their idea of fair is your idea of fair and whether they the feminist movement you exemplify influencing public policy.

Tommie,
I would like to offer my condolences to yourself and other members of the families of those in the tragedy that occurred in Townsville.

Let’s go back to the start. When I first posted here I had just heard that three more girls had been raped in my area.

Leigh’s talk of whinging and whining women and in light of that it got up my nose. He said: ” “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.” Not one of you contested his statement. So all your gender-neutral carry on is not believable. No you were too busy laying into women who run rape crisis centres. I have made it clear that abused men deserve the same compassion and respect as women. But still you lot insist on claiming otherwise and attacking women like Betty and Bronwyn. You cannot be gender neutral by virtue of your own sex and gendering.

Rules for men.

Do not kill, do not rape, do not steal, do not disrespect or harm your wife or children , do not harm others except in self -defence.

These are principles that every man of every faith can embrace. These are not polite suggestions. They are codes of behaviour and those who ignore them are to be held in contempt. ( Duffy’s words I think).

Now man to men. Maybe I am biased. So what? Now the article wasn’t about family law it was about domestic violence and abuse of women. Let’s cut through the crap. Do you or don’t think these “codes of behaviour “ are simple enough to understand? Do you think that every man (spouse) should embrace them? Do you think that there are no excuses for those who breech these codes? Do you think that Leigh’s statement was over the top and it is that kind of disrespect that heard often enough may lead to rape and abuse of women? I say a firm yes to all.

Happy Bullet says: "You: Men are 100% to blame for domestic violence. (Demonising men)
You: A paper that says the primary cause of domestic violence is patriarchy, that context should be taken into account when considering claims of 50/50 abuse. (Demonising men, justifying women's abuse of men as "self defence against patriarchal oppression")"

HB I did not say that. You are dishonest. I hold firm to my opinions (violent men demonise themselves).

Now most of the things I have said in this thread your mates have put their spin and meaning on it and claimed that their meaning was my intended meaning.

Dozer: Re anger management. FYI It is an unfortunate name. Anyway the thing is these courses show that feelings of inadequacy some men feel because they are not big and tough are a product socialisation. That manhood is so much more. So should a woman assault a male he should not be held back by feelings of inferiority or unmanliness generally or when considering whether or not to lay charges. I have a mate (non-violent to women but very angry at his low-wage status and consequences) doing one of these courses and it has been helpful. So the idea that gentlemen are “whipped” to quote one of your cohorts just their socialisation which is ironically what prevents men from taking abused men’s position seriously.

You lot send me to links that tell unsubstantiated nonsense about women in rape crisis centres doing favours to police in return for favourable evidence and then jump all over me for sending you to a reasonable site that has acknowledged that female violence against males needs investigating and still it isn't good enough. Nothing will make you happy. You hypocrites are not serious about domestic violence generally; you are just interested in undermining women and men who are active in issues to do with abuse of females. I think they do a mighty job. Great Australians

I urge you all to stop this negative approach and put your position forward with some integrity. Thus far your attitude and methods have been shameful.

Ok ronnie , since you appear to have thrown me in with the Leigh position,which i don't agree with, I will post again.
As domestic violence of the psycological and physical kinds can be a problem to both men and women in relationships I suggest compulsory
year 10-12 school training on the pitfalls of relationships along with the impacts of working life stresses ,and how to spot the pits and change direction before we fall into them.
This is followed up by another compulsory 2 day workshop for couples PRE marriage with the accent on preventing violence of any kind in relationships and letting them know what the stresses are that can cause hurt and how to avoid them .
Men-haters and women-haters need specialist help programmes for their unusual situations .
I suspect men that men receive a fair bit of their abuse from their womenfolk in through their ears and that can hurt too.We generally get over it fairly quickly but there can be unseen bruising .
Perhaps the White Ribbon Day could be a White and Blue Ribbons Day with due recognition given to the violence, psycological and physical men can suffer also .
This would help a lot for both sexes to understand the problems and the need to overcome them.

ronnie peters

Why is it so hard for you to say 'some'? That is the main sticking point these respondents are talking about isn't it? Maybe they have a point: how many women would stomach being labelled as child abusers, solely because women make up the bulk of child abusers - a definition which includes child neglect?

How would you feel if a male respondent to OLO said he was so incensed by the current reports of the death of a young infant through neglect by its mother, that he felt quite OK about labelling you and all women as child killers?

The whole thrust of WRD demonises men and this campaign disempowers women as it demonises men. However it does serve to prop up the 'women as victims' industry which is about careers and research grants for middle class professional women, mainly academics and bureaucrats. I object to this because there is nothing in it for most women and it drains resources away from areas of need - two of which are youth and families.

So would it choke you to utter 'some' occasionally when referring to men (and women)?

Not being so hung up on sex could help too.

What is it about radical feminists and their sexuality? Oh that's right, most are bisexual or lesbians. That probably explains the spin and spite of the feminist elite in Oz, who seem to be overly represented in the government bureaucracies and in universities.

As far as I can see, most respondents have been more than gracious in overlooking the most obvious motivations for the shrill clarion calls of radical and gender feminists to trash men and families:

- because it suits their own lifestyle choices and wallets.

WRD is about divisiveness and more women are asking why their menfolk and young sons should be required to shoulder the guilt of a crazy mass killer who lived in Canada. He stood out in Canada because like Australia, his crime was so unthinkable.

Don't let the feminist elite disempower you by causing you to distrust every male you meet!

ronnie, I had not paid much attention to Leigh's comment and no I don't agree with what appears to be the thrust of it.

Still one comment like that (which does not appear to have been supported by other posters ) is no excuse to ignore the many valid points that have been made nor to start making personal allegations against other posters on which you have no basis to make those allegations except your own sexism. I imagine you'd be at the front of the queue to howl down any poster who suggested a woman who claimed to have had an abusive spouse was probably lying about their spouse (without any supporting evidence).

Now as for your rules lets try another version.

Rules for humans.

Do not kill, do not use sex to harm, do not steal, do not disrespect or harm your spouse or children, do not harm others except in self -defence (and only then if there are not better options).

I agree with your initial rule but having seen the very real harm done by unnecessary genderisation I'll go with the version that talks about all our responsibilities.

R0bert

A niece of mine was allegedly sexually assaulted and I felt like going out to kill the alleged offender. He was later bashed and set on fire by a gang which included his girlfriend. No charges were laid against him for the alleged assault.

My youngest brother kept secret for many years his own sexual assault.

There have been a number of cases where people took the law into their own hands and have killed innocent people who were falsely accused of sexual assault. A gay man was bashed to death because a woman accused him of sexual assault.

More recently a number of people have been charged with murdering a man accused of abuse.

As to Leighs post.

A while ago I saw an article which said something like one of the stongest indicators of DV is an emotionally abusive spouse. Not terribly PC but food for thought.

Erin Pizzey writes about working with violent women, she labels them family terrorists.
http://fathersforlife.org/pizzey/terror.htm

There was an article in todays Sunday Telegraph, that didn't make it on line, about a female basketball coach in South Australia who has been charged with having sex with a 14 year old boy player.

If she is found guilty I wonder if she will get the same punishments as a male coach would get under the circumstances.

Not domestic violence I hear you say?

Well, it is still about abusing the body of another. It is still about power, or is it only about power when a male does the act?

Some 10 years ago I escaped DV at great financial and emotional cost to my family. No one was there to help – it was all apparently my fault.

My family’s emotional and financial abuse still continues to this day, mainly through the agents of feminism such as family law court and csa, albeit at reduced frequency and severity.

So why would WRD organisers come along to insist on my support? To obfuscate and subvert … to justify child abuse? To satisfy some residual primeval female survival instinct? The gall of such arrogance!

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/m-n/mills/03/mills120203.htm
Public Heaps Scorn on Male Victims of Abusive Women

A striking feature of women's violence is that it can be both physical and emotional. Suzanne Steinmetz, now a sociology professor at Indiana University, called "husband beating" the most unreported crime in the United States. According to a 1997 study of New Zealand young adults, women admitted committing severe physical aggression..

Emotional antagonism

Violence researcher Victoria Burbank found that women also are guilty of emotional abuse, such as locking a partner out of the house or belittling him. Those who are quick to minimize emotional abuse should know that these tactics have been found to predict physical aggression in marriage. In other words, a woman's emotional abuse can be a catalyst for a physical reaction from her partner.

The fact is that taking Gest's accusations seriously challenges our core assumption that women always are victims. In another recent high profile case, actor Christian Slater received several stitches to the back of his head after being struck with a drinking glass. According to news reports, Slater initially told the police that his wife threw the glass at him. Later, after learning about Nevada's strict domestic violence laws, he changed his story

Not as simple as it may look

The picture of a violent couple is always complicated. Although it is important to note that men tend to harm women at greater rates, what's most often occurring is a nuanced, even imperceptible dynamic between a man and woman in which they provoke each other.

Sorting out exactly who is doing what to whom is a matter for a Solomon to decide. But until the public recognizes and begins to grapple with this interwoven dynamic, the true causes of intimate abuse never will be understood nor its sad consequences adequately addressed.

Beliefs about men's and women's violence are so sacred and arouse such strong feelings that the thought of questioning them can sometimes evoke violence. After Steinmetz published her groundbreaking book, The Battered Husband Syndrome, in 1978, she was not only derided and denounced, but her children's lives also were threatened.

Happy Bullet:

"Men are violent towards women". I agree with the qualification of "some" which most people can work out for themselves.

"Men do not take enough collective responsibility for this". I agree.

"Women are seeing red!!". Don't blame them.

"The cause of domestic violence is patriarchal oppression". Of course it is when men use violnce to oppress their women.

Around ninety percent of homes are supposedly free of violence so perhaps you should be listening to us instead of those from dysfunctional situations.

Supporting WRD can only be helpful. Why would you want to harm such a great idea? It can only help raise the awareness of the wrongness of domestic violence.

I am “sexist” for supporting WRD and “liar” for thinking an article is reasonable and heading in the correct direction: yet most of your arguments and links are clearly pushing the "men's" position. There is no logical way you could slag off violence against women without undermining the dysfunctional aspect of domestic violence generally.

You want equal rights but men walk the streets without fear of being raped; you want equality but men are mostly larger/stronger and more often take advantage of this to threaten and violently control and harm women. That some women do this is not disputed.

RObert: “Still one comment like that (which does not appear to have been supported by other posters ) is no excuse to ignore the rest…” No RObert you jump all over Flood and myself for being sexist and because we see the benefits of WRD and yet missed Leigh’s sexist post. And you refuse to distance yourself from posters who send to links supporting patriarchal religious nonsense and isolated instances of women behaving badly. I am not ignoring anything I just don’t agree with most of your attitudes and think your criticism of WRD is hypocritically gender based, petty and miserable.

Yes, we are all human first - that's obvious. However, violence against women is historically men taking advantage of their physical, personal, politcal and financial power to harm and control an other. That undermines my gender's reputation.

"Yes, we are all human first - that's obvious. However, violence against women is historically men taking advantage of their physical, personal, politcal and financial power to harm and control an other. That undermines my gender's reputation."
(And women have no part to play in this relationship other than victim. That DV is a mans problem and men ought to leave women to manage the politicalization of DV and fully support male demonization if they ever want women to be successful in bringing an end to DV. What ever women do today does not change the collective guilt of man going back to the advent of fire.)
If feminist were honest about their sex and duty to a better society they would concentrate on the females that perpetuate DV. Instead they hide and prevaricate and lay blame rather than include themselves as part of the problem of DV. Men are to blame. 54% of the population is female but, men are the problem. And 10% of the male pop. is gay, so men are actually only 36% of the pop. but, 100% responsible for everything. Who's oppressing whom. Ronnie you bully.

Below is a link from Cornflower. What a gendered weekend? They call me sexist.
http://www.mhwaq.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28&Itemid=143

Except:
Why a Men's Festival?
By Tim Easton
What do one hundred and twenty Men do for four days? - no women, no beer, no drugs, no fishing, no boat, no golf, no motorbike, no car and definitely no nonsense. Well they talk, they listen, they are heard, they share their pain and confusion - but most of all they reconnect with what it is to be a Man - balls and all.
It is rather trite to say but it is true - they are black Men, white Men, yellow Men, gay Men, straight Men, happy Men, depressed Men, Men who can sing, Men who counsel, Men who teach Yoga, Men who offer guidance, Men who want to learn to be themselves - Carpenters, Lawyers, Farmers, Doctors, Bricklayers, Salesmen, Hippies, Young Men, Old Men, Plumbers, Businessmen, Fathers, Husbands, Physiotherapists, Chiropractors, Psychologists, Homeopaths, Dentists, Labourers - I have met them all at a Men's Festival.

In Happy Bullet’s and RObert’s naff logic that equates to you and your mates being liars and inconsistent. Anyway good luck and God bless the Men’s festival.

Some men see that most aspects of paternal and manly behaviour does not exclude all men from the ability to relate to women in a fair and non-sexist way in other areas such as business, the workplace, school, politics and even events opposing violence to women -like WRD.

RObert and Bullet’s thinking is comparable to having gendered thinking because I am a Dad. I am gendered - I am male – doesn’t make me sexist though.

Cornflower I usually am careful to qualify my statements with words like “some” or “certain” and so on. Maybe you are reading a spun “quote” or it was my oversight. Read what I say not what they say I said.

I don’t understand why men like those above would object to WRD or why certain men would be called sexist if they supported it. There is nothing wrong with a men’s festival or men supporting WRD.

Ronnie,

First, you’ve made a howler:

“You may have noticed that the ABS has no starts (sic) for male victims of DV.”

Go to
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4906.02005%20(Reissue)?OpenDocument,

download PDF format of 4906.0 Personal Safety Australia. In particular, read from about p. 32 onward. There are plenty of stats on both male and female victims of DV, and at remarkably similar rates.

Regarding your attacks on the supposed religious fanatic in our midst, most links JamesH sends us are from non-religious sites. The arguments we have been making exist independently of religion.

Regarding Nuns, you will notice that I have gone to great lengths to ensure a gender neutral approach:

“the use of words male and female is interchangeable. Traits, tactics and effects of bullies are the same regardless of gender.”

“in addition to the problems preventing the abused (male or female,) from reporting abuse (by male or female,)…”

“He noted that the provocation defence had been used in a number of quite appropriate cases by both males and females.”

“Mr Ramage’s use of the provocation defence appears very tenuous, and a cynical manipulation of a law which was supposed to protect victims of both genders.”

“Regarding penalties for false DV accusations… I think it may also deter genuine victims, both male and female, from prosecuting.”

“a huge body of evidence suggests that at the very least, DV committed against males by females makes up a sizeable proportion of all DV in Western countries, and at best is committed at the same rate.”

However, you have misrepresented one of the few sentences where I have failed to qualify my language into gender neutral terms, to accuse me of gender bias. As HB so eloquently put it, it is very hard to lie on the internet. Ironically, that sentence’s intention was to correct the gender bias you have clearly shown. Perhaps if you study closely the PSS Report from the ABS website, you will no longer make such gender biased statements as “I think that 100 to 1 is more likely.”

Regarding the reference to Elvis,

it is diversionary to refer to a film made around half a century ago as evidence of misogynistic attitudes in today’s media. If you value context, don’t use Elvis or “the rule of thumb” as an example of alleged current male domination over females. There is no comparison between then and now.

You accuse posters of “bullying behaviours” frequently, (and, I must say, fraudulently:)

“Do you resort to emotional blackmail in your other relationships?”

“Your non-de-plume affords you the ability to slander, smear and behave foolishly without consequence”

“This orchestrated attack on my person”

These tactics you have accused others of using are prime examples of bullying behaviour.

Your query over “where I claimed you gave me a physical injury over the internet,” suggests that you do not read our responses very closely. My line “there is no physical presence to reinforce verbal intimidation,” does not imply that you perceived physical threat. (Indeed, as I have noted, bullying behaviour does not require physical contact.) It simply notes the impersonality of the internet. Your portrayal of this comment is a good example of “tell(ing) people what they’ve said with your own spin on it.”

Interestingly, you have made a big deal about posters using nicknames, as though you are somehow braver for posting your name. (You accuse RObert of using a nickname so he can slander his ex. Maybe he’s protecting the kids.) But I have never heard of you, and I couldn’t care less. (Incidentally, are you suggesting my username is a subconscious indication of unresolved anger? I have no idea what you mean by that little FYI.)

I am seriously starting to wonder if “Ronnie Peters” is not itself a pseudonym. Indeed, your method of arguing, whereby you lie about what you have previously said, and engage our own arguments by misreading them (accidentally or intentionally) and then arguing against this misreading, bares remarkable similarity to an old girlfriend. These tactics work in a face to face argument, but are useless when your words are recorded.

I’m sure others have had similar suspicions, but…

Are you actually a woman?

If feminists were interested in avoidable deaths to women, then they should be interested in falls, intentional self-harm, accidental drowning, transport accidents, and general accidents, but rarely do feminists talk about such things.

The death rate for women due to falls is about 7 times higher than for assault.
The death rate for women due to intentional self-harm is about 8 times higher than for assault.
The death rate for women due to accidental drowning is about the same as for assault.
The death rate for women due to transport accidents is about 8 times higher than for assault.
The death rate for women due to general accidents is about 32 times higher than for assault.

Assault is one of the least likely causes of avoidable deaths to women in this country, but the most publicised by feminists. Undoubtedly feminists like to portray assault to women as being a leading cause of death because of their desire to marginalise and demonise males as much as possible.

In all the above categories the death rates for men are normally 2-3 times higher than for women, but this is not mentioned by feminists either. Instead feminists now want men to cut off their arms and throw themselves under a bus.

ronnie peters said, "Below is a link from Cornflower. What a gendered weekend? They call me sexist.
http://www.mhwaq.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28&Itemid=143"

Well yes, ronnie, you would indeed be more than a bit sexist if you object to that group which has done a lot of good for men and women. Do some real research and you will find women applauding its results.

I cannot find any problem with their wording to promote the activity - it is just a bit of fun (the wording) nothing more. Maybe you are seeing what you expect to see and that is the problem. That could come from having to defend yourself too often.

Thanks for saying 'some' when referring to men. Most men (in fact all with few exceptions) are very nice to know, fair, loyal, safe and utterly reliable. Just like most women. Fat lot of good 99.99% of men and boys get out of the much maligned patriarchy. Maybe that concept is just a paper tiger invented to scare us enough so we suspend our judgement and accept blindly what is being said (allegedly) on our behalf.

ronnie, "I don’t understand why men like those above would object to WRD or why certain men would be called sexist if they supported it."

Perhaps it's because you've not tried to understand, instead running with conclusions about those of us who object to the one sided portrayal of DV and putting everything through the filters of your views about those evil mens groups.

We have tried over and over to explain why we have a problem with the representation of DV as a male only problem, guy's get abused because it's obvious that society does not have an issue with female to male violence.

WRD with it's one sided portrayal of the issue is another brick in the wall.

I also stand against the misrepresentation of DV and child abuse because I think they contributes to harm to children and injustice in the various aspects of the family law system. The impression that DV and child abuse are male problems rather than human problems is openly used by some groups to oppose family law reform with claims of "protecting women and children".

You make a principled stand againt the same kind of villification of mossies that you expect us to stand up and support on the DV topic.

In my view (and I may diverge from some of my collegues on this) men who support WRD are not necessarily sexist, people who villify male victims of DV are. People who knowingly use misleading statististics to support false claims about gender violence are - I'm not sure if that's you but I have not seen any sign that you have looked at the evidence about female to male violence. My guess is that you ignore it because your views about oppression let you decide that it's justified when a woman hits a male partner.

I've got no problem with gender specific activities as long as those activities are not used to create a false impression of the issue or the opportunity for an equivalent activity is denied to the other gender.

R0bert

Bronwyn said: “… these stories are simply among the most recent in the unending horror stories of male violence, and retaliation against women who speak out.

“Such retaliation is given more power not only by the proliferation of so-called “men’s rights groups”, as well as the writings of some male academics such as Michael Woods (University of Western Sydney) who seek to discredit research and testimony on male violence, but also by the media, which continue to sensationalise and trivialise it with tawdry headlines…”

All of which makes it terribly important that initiatives such as WRD exist… “ I agree.

After seeing the negative approach of some men here, I’d say, that their behaviour confirms what women are up against. I am called a retard, ridiculous, whipped, bully, liar, implied that I am responsible for a suicide in June long before my comments; I must be woman; must be on pay roll; implied I have been mistreated by my mum; been caught wanking; and so on,on and on.. I must be doing something right. The characteristic behaviour of people genuinely interested in social justice - even for male victims – is not seen here.

RObert your posts come back to how you feel –as a male. There are plenty of women who still don’t see justice. “Human” this and that is just an angle to undermine positive activities like WRD. RObert men that you are talking about are not vilified as much or as unreasonably as mossies. Not too interested in the vilification of Ronnie. You ignore JamesH : “The Last Time I Hit A Woman” shouldn’t that be “human”? Just an angle.

Youlot had a choice - to leave women who operate rape crisis centres and domestic abuse refuges for women alone - or undermine those women, their work and opinions. You had the choice to just present your own male-victim position but instead you chose to try and ruin the good work of people organising WRD. I support wholeheartedly the women/ men and organisations behind WRD. I love the positive approach of White Ribbon Day website.

Ronnie Peters,
You can join the WRD, but the WRD has not shown any interest in presenting balanced, objective and non-gender prejudiced information.

If you are a male you would have to unquestioningly believe everything the WRD tells you.

If they say that you are a rapist because you are a male, then you would have to believe that.

If they say that you assault women because you are a male, then you would have to believe that.

If they say that you are a murdered because you are a male, then you would have to believe that.

If they say that you should chop off your arm and throw yourself under a bus because you are a male, then you would have to believe that.

You cannot say that you have not been warned.

HRS, from what I've seen on the WRD website they are not as unbalanced as that. They do give recognition to men as victims of DV and I don't think that they are pushing the line that all men do the stuff you talk about.

My issue with them is that by doing their public focus only on male violence against women they perpetuate some very damaging beliefs. If their campaign was run in a broader environment where violence committed by women was addressed to some degree then I'd have no real issue with their work (except for the sick imagery which even Michael Flood seems to have concerns about).

As for ronnies comment regarding males being villified less than mossies maybe that perception is based on never having tried to get help regarding an abusive spouse (but then I've never been mossie either).

R0bert

Ronnie Peters,

I never implied that you were responsible for the suicide of a man. If you read the article from where it came from it was about a guy who realised that the battles with his ex were never going to end, so he took his own life.

Is not threatening another person with not ever seeing the children again DV?

Nor did I imply that you had been mistreated by your mum. I wrote about boys being mistreated by their mothers, firstly because I know about it and secondly I am trying to explore some ideas, because there is something going on here which I can not put my finger on.

If I beleived that these things applied to you then I would have said so directly.

The 'Last time i hit a woman' is a direct quote from the article.

There is something very dysfunctional happening here!

"Bronwyn said: “… these stories are simply among the most recent in the unending horror stories of male violence, and retaliation against women who speak out."

“Such retaliation is given more power not only by the proliferation of so-called “men’s rights groups”,

There are plenty of female writers who are challanging people like Bronwyn, yet you ignore them and focus purely on men and men's groups.
Erin Pizzey, Cathy Young, Wendy McElroy, Eeva Sodhi, Melaine Philips, Bettina Arndt to name a few.

If research cannot stand up to scrutiny then it is faulty research.

On one hand women say they want men involved in discourse then on the other because men are not saying the things that they (women) want to hear, we get accused of being violent, abusers etc.

Read Daphne Patai, Hoff Sommers, Melaine Philips and Erin Pizzey they should be in the uni library if they haven't been censored. Then read Warren Farrell, David Thomas, Thomas Ellis, Phillip Cook, Maggie Hamilton, Katie Roiphe, Richard Hise,

It sounds like Bronwyn really has it in for Michael Woods.

Read all those authors then you can come back and tell me I'm mad, sexists, what ever.

"Sophistry" Patai uses alot.

Dozer: “(Incidentally, are you suggesting my username is a subconscious indication of unresolved anger? I have no idea what you mean by that little FYI.)” For Your Information (FYI)I think from memory I was referring to a complaint from someone about my suggestion that certain people needed some anger management. That “anger management” is just about controlling violent men is not what these programs are about. They also undo some of the socialisation of men. Living up to the tough-guy male is often the reason men won’t report violence to police or friends. I have already explained this to you. I thought I was supporting RObert’s piont of view. Anger from “dozer” – no.

Dozer: Peters has… said that … opponents of WRD as being anti-feminist, anti-equality, misogynist, rage-aholics, and cynical abusers who either perpetuate or cannot face their own crimes – no I haven’t said all that , except for anti-feminist.

Dozer you say: “’where I claimed you gave me a physical injury over the internet,’ suggests that you do not read our responses very closely. “ Where is your sense of humour. You accused me of complaining about “bullying behaviours”. I never accused you of that and can’t recall ever debating you elsewhere. Your line “there is no physical presence to reinforce verbal intimidation,” is debatable. I use my real name and I am in fairly accessible.

And to top it off you say that “bullying behaviour does not require physical contact.” Elsewhere you say:” It is nigh on impossible to bully someone engaged in a debate over the internet.” You’re spinning too much even for me. You say my supposed “misreading, bares remarkable similarity to an old girlfriend”. Maybe it was you confusing her after all.

Dozer points “You may have noticed that the ABS has no starts (sic) for male victims of DV.” Dozer I was agreeing that the ABS site was slack for not having stats on male victims of domestic violence. So I was wrong - they do have the stats. My 100 to 1 statement was qualified but I do wonder.

Retarded-woman-posing-as-man wrote:

"After seeing the negative approach of some men here, I’d say, that their behaviour confirms what women are up against."

If you're starting to realise that the negative approach of:

1) Focusing on blaming men only
2) Fallaciously deciding that all men are responsible for violence committed in a particular fashion by a minority

With no 1 ignoring victims, being an approach that has never worked and basically encourages a concern that ALL MEN HAVE, which is: If the focus is on men only, then WOMEN'S-VIOLENCE-AGAINST-MEN-WILL-INCREASE-AS-A-RESULT-OF-BEING ABLE-TO-GET-AWAY-WITH-IT.

Breeds further negativity then you're getting somewhere. Doubt that though. Your purpose here appears to be stirring up hatred against men. This confirms that men, in helping evil women like yourself, are making the mistake Chamberlain made at the start of WWII by appeasing the Nazi aggressor. I am comparing you and feminists like you to nazis. Of course you love WRD, Hitler signed the treaty stating there would be no hostility without hesitation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement_of_Hitler

Coming soon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement_of_radical_feminists

"I am called a retard, ridiculous, whipped, bully, liar,"

Asides from almost all of these being provably true, particularly "liar" and "ridiculous" are you saying that you consider being called say "a bully" to be offensive? Precisely what feminists are doing when they one-sidedly attack men for "violence". Fact is, THESE CAMPAIGNS ARE ABUSIVE THEMSELVES. By not opposing this sort of thing men are simply telling feminists "I allow you to emotionally abuse me". And you expect men to SUPPORT nazis like YOU do that?

I am beginning to doubt feminazis actually expect men's support. They'd rather use underhanded tactics to stir up hate when we don't support something that is clearly an attack on us.

"I must be doing something right."

Obviously!! Your posts here have highlighted the feminist involvement in DV being solely about feminism as a hate movement against men. Men having been subject to this for YEARS then witnessing a woman being beaten are going to stop to think why they should do a whit more than shrug and continue with their day. Great work What a hypocrite.

JamesH,

Firstly I would like to acknowledge you and HRS who offered condolences to me and all the family members involved in the Townsville tragedy. Something is also bothering me about the underlying thread to these posts. What is not being recognized here is that the imprint of violence begins in childhood. The resultant effect that takes place upon the intellectual and emotional development of a child can leave that child non functional in a multitude of aspects. Violence is not just contained to the physical. What a child hears growing up becomes the imprint for its own ability to cognitively rationalize future information and how to express that information. Therefore, my argument is that ongoing violence exists in how we speak to each other and therefore, how we treat each other which may develop into higher risk categories of physical violence. As Erin Pizzey postulates, the “Emotional Terrorist” does exist in households and that emotional terrorist can definitely be a ‘she’.

Therefore, are we not supposed to be educated grown ups that hold great responsibility in the words that we choose to use? Until women take responsibility for their own levels of violence as is the direct responsibility of men and to constructively change their own paradigms then the derogatory accusations will go on ad nauseum and we will still be swimming in the same turbulent sea with no chance of sharing the oar. Oh by the way JamesH, your not mad or sexist or whatever.. at least you are trying to give representation to both sides of the coin and believe me as a woman I’m not afraid to say that there is two sides. As an adult I have just chosen constructively to deal with my own issues without resorting to physical or verbal violence..My best wishes to those who are searching for a holistic solution to DV

"Therefore, are we not supposed to be educated grown ups that hold great responsibility in the words that we choose to use? Until women take responsibility for their own levels of violence as is the direct responsibility of men and to constructively change their own paradigms then the derogatory accusations will go on ad nauseum and we will still be swimming in the same turbulent sea with no chance of sharing the oar. Oh by the way JamesH, your not mad or sexist or whatever.. at least you are trying to give representation to both sides of the coin and believe me as a woman I’m not afraid to say that there is two sides. As an adult I have just chosen constructively to deal with my own issues without resorting to physical or verbal violence..My best wishes to those who are searching for a holistic solution to DV"

Absolutely spot on Tommie and please accept my condolences as well.

Robert,
The WRD web-site is 1 web-site amongst millions, and most people will not even look at it. Please read through the article again, and also read through the list of names at the bottom of the article. This article is propaganda from the domestic violence industry, and most of the literature coming from that industry uses the word “men”, which means that they regard “all” men as being one and the same.

If the words “Jew” or “Muslim” or “Asians” were used instead of “men”, it would be immediately identified as being discrimination, but because the word “men” is used, it is not regarded by the media or by many University academics as being discrimination.

Eventually this type of discrimination of men will adversely affect women and also children as well, although many feminists and many University academics are presently too shortsighted and prejudiced to understand that.

This article is discriminatory propaganda. There is no mention of domestic violence carried out by women in this article, and the article uses the word “men”, which classifies all men as being the same. It is an unbalanced and prejudiced article based on gender discrimination.

You can make complaints to the University of Sydney via the Acting Manager, Harassment & Discrimination Resolution at p.lyons@eeo.usyd.edu.au

The Universities have to understand that they cannot continue to harbour gender-prejudiced people.

Tommie,
I tend to see domestic violence and childhood abuse as being a type of problem that can be solved, and all my general training in problem solving has been to define the problem first, and then try to find solutions.

Unfortunately the issue of domestic violence and abuse has become so clouded by gender politics it is now difficult to define the problem. So of course the gender politics and gender-prejudiced attitudes have to be removed before the problem can be properly defined and then solutions found. I tend to think that there can be several reasons why domestic violence and abuse can occur, and there may be several solutions, but not one single or universal solution.

Unfortunately I’ve reached the word limit.

TY Tommie and Iain for your support.

Today, a sophism generally refers to a particularly confusing, illogical and/or insincere argument used by someone to make a point, or, perhaps, not to make a point.
Sophistry refers to the practice of using such arguments, and is used pejoratively for rhetoric that is designed to appeal to the listener on grounds other than the strict logical cogency of the statements being made.

or

"subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation" (Webster)

Ronnie wrote;

"Bronwyn said: “… these stories are simply among the most recent in the unending horror stories of male violence, and retaliation against women who speak out.

“Such retaliation is given more power not only by the proliferation of so-called “men’s rights groups”, as well as the writings of some male academics such as Michael Woods (University of Western Sydney) who seek to discredit research and testimony on male violence, but also by the media, which continue to sensationalise and trivialise it with tawdry headlines…”

Cathy Young wrote;
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28658.html

"For most students, the "myth-debunking" critique of orthodox feminism -- the exposés of bogus and manipulated facts and statistics -- proved powerful and eye-opening. One of my most amusing moments came this year, after I assigned four readings for the discussion of domestic violence: two representative feminist pieces purporting to document a domestic violence epidemic caused by sexism and tacitly abetted by society, and two critiques explaining the dubious origin of such claims as "battering is the leading cause of injury to American women." One student lamented that he had read the pieces "in the wrong order" -- the "dissidents" first. "By the time I read the last two," he said, "I kept going, 'That's a lie!'" Interestingly, he and a few others said that our readings about ideologically motivated statistical shenanigans had left them with a healthy skepticism of all statistical and factual claims, by feminists, anti-feminists, or anyone else."

There is a major flaw in the way many of you are calling men to support your cause. The flaw is the latent hostility buried in the way you deliver your message and the sense of generalised defensiveness (guilt, responsibility) with which innocent men (the vast majority) find ourselves embued.

There is also the deeply disquieted undertow of men who are sick of being blamed for all the bad stuff in this world. Its so ingraineed these daze. We are a bit tired of your stance and personally l find myself complacently blase in the face of your concerns and issues and problems and injustices and hardship and abuse and on and on. l dont mean to be, l'm just tired of the implication. Like that comment that women have a right not to be raped by strange or familiar men. Has anyone thought that us strange and familiar men have a right not to be called latent/potential rapists. When its done in that tediously passive-aggressive, plausable deniability sort of a way, it doesnt help matters much.

If your message isnt getting thru, YOU need to figure out what YOU are doing wrong, instead of BLAMING US. Guys like me are starting to 'zone out' when you go that route. To reiterate... we are oh, sooooo, tired of that.

You have a lot of work on your hands, the worst kind, the hardest type of work. That stuff where you have to do what you emplore us to do... SELF EXAMINE.

As many of us suspect, some women seem to always insist on having the last word. In that context, WoRD makes a lot of sense. This uncompromising position (by definition) ignores all intervening facts.

WRD may have begun as some well-meaning paternalistic gesture, but as with so many others, now only contributes to a dangerous build-up in Weapons of Radical Destruction.

The very people who started it (men), have now all become its targets. In our blind eagerness to defend the indefensible, we are beginning to neglect the real causes of, and the very significant levels of collateral damage. Our children.

This is where our collective responsibilities should lay. But no … many still firmly believe that women are responsible for all innocence, men for all evil.

Men are due for an awakening. Stop assigning such roles and half the problem would instantly disappear.

HRS, I totally agree with you regarding this article, my comments were in regard to what I thought you were saying in your post about WRD itself.

I'm unhappy about WRD because I think the massive focus on genderising discussion about DV perpetuates DV and provides a significant number of victims with no outs. If WRD was conducted in a climate where there was support for male victims of DV then I'd not have an issue.

The article is a different issue.

Ronnie, I'm trying to get my head around what you actually think on this issue. Have we got bogged down in rebutting what we think the other is saying rather than what is being said?
My understanding is that
- you believe that almost all DV is committed by men against women and that you may hold men responsible for the times when men are hit by women.
- you think that men have some kind of collective responsibility for this and that we all somehow share in the guilt.
- I don't know what you think about the studies that show DV is not significantly genderised, not sure if you've commented on those.
- I have the impression that you think that the issues facing what male victims of DV exist are too small to put effort into and that any attention paid to them takes away from the much more needy female victims.
- You seem to think I loose credibility if I don't pick up on every point that I should disagree with and then comment on it.

Am I misunderstanding you on any of these points?

For the record I'm trying to stay out of the name calling aspect of the debate, I don't like it (but sometimes find myself with leftover mud on my hands).

R0bert

A vivacious, curvy young spoon dances freely to the music in the TV commercial. She is soon joined by a handsome young pint-sized bucket of ice-cream, who, tipping his lid, joins her in dance. Before she knows it, she is surrounded by sweet suitors, each offering a unique flavour. Ecstatic, the highly prized spoon leaps into the air, and upon landing, penetrates the soft, moist contents of the nearest dessert.

Great. Now we even use ice-cream ads to deconstruct masculinity…

Try this link for the ABS PSS. Other one is acting up.

http://www.aifs.gov.au/acssa/statistics.html#npss

“Ronnie,”

Yes, it is all about you.

The reference to the man who killed himself is an indictment on a system which does not support male victims of DV, not a suggestion that you, personally, are somehow responsible for the tragedy. HB did not accuse you of being whipped- instead he noted that men and women should take equal responsibility for their actions, rather than males letting women dominate relationships. I have not called you a bully- I showed that you have accused others of “bullying behaviour.” (The poster who called you a retard was indeed insulting, but it was an indication of his exasperation at your continual refusal or inability to engage our arguments directly.)

JamesH was not suggesting that your mother chastised you for masturbating. Instead, by comparing your tactics to abusive mothers, he shows that he understands what I was getting at. It is not your attachment to feminist theory that caused me to question your gender.

(Some examples of this attachment include-

- Your assertion that patriarchy is the cause of DV

- You appear to imbue the terms “gender neutral” and “gender bias” with a different meaning to us. In arguing that DV affects both genders equally, we argue that DV is a gender neutral issue, and WRD, in focusing on DV against females, is gender biased. In contrast, you appear to clamp down on any language which makes any differentiation between the genders as being gender biased. Do you believe that gender is merely a social construct? Surely an article which

discusses the differences between the way males and females argue, and indeed, think, must be entitled “the last time I hit a woman” for that very reason.)

Instead, it is that your tactics appear so similar to those employed by females, and, (this is not to suggest that you are abusive in your relationships,) particularly to abusive females. Your latest response, in which you twisted what we have said into an attack upon you personally, is yet another example of an emotional, illogical response. If you are indeed a man, I would suggest that you have been so comprehensively socialised by feminist ideology that you have come to think, write, and argue in a “feminised” manner.

(It’s important to point out here that I think women are awesome. However, JamesH’s link highlighted a perennial problem.)

A few comments on The Patriarchy as the supposed source of DV:

Structural inequalities existed in the past, (and some still survive,) and feminism has been instrumental in remedying these problems. However, the underlying assumption that discrimination is the product of The Patriarchy leads to a simplistic approach. Thus when DV against women continues unabated, the conclusion must be that The Patriarchy is as strong as ever and continues to violently oppress the female class, rather than seeking a more effective approach.

The study below demonstrates a number of findings:

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID41E2.pdf

DV rates against females are lower in countries which have generally better attitudes and laws regarding gender equality.

Rates of DV against both genders are relatively even in these countries.

People (male or female) who exhibit more controlling tendencies in their personality are more likely to use violence.

Thus, challenging misogynistic laws and attitudes to women is instrumental to reducing DV against women. However, as power relations between the genders in a society become more equal, and as studies show that violence in a relationship is a reflection of power imbalance and a controlling personality, (and alcohol and drug abuse, alienation, etc,) it becomes more and more important to approach the issue of DV as a human issue rather than one of gender.

Dozer: “ Peters has… said that … opponents of WRD as being anti-feminist, anti-equality, misogynist, rage-aholics, and cynical abusers who either perpetuate or cannot face their own crimes.” – no I haven’t said all that , except for anti-feminist.

Dozer you say: “’where I claimed you gave me a physical injury over the internet,’ suggests that you do not read our responses very closely. “ Where is your sense of humour. You accused me of complaining about “bullying behaviours”. I never accused you of that and can’t recall ever debating you elsewhere. Your line “there is no physical presence to reinforce verbal intimidation,” is debatable. I use my real name and I am in fairly accessible.

And to top it off you say that “bullying behaviour does not require physical contact.” Elsewhere you say:” It is nigh on impossible to bully someone engaged in a debate over the internet.” You’re spinning too much even for me. You say my supposed “misreading, bares remarkable similarity to an old girlfriend”. Maybe it was you confusing her after all.

Dozer points “You may have noticed that the ABS has no starts (sic) for male victims of DV.” Dozer I was agreeing that the ABS site was slack for not having stats on male victims of domestic violence. So I was wrong - they do have the stats. My 100 to 1 statement was qualified but I do wonder.

JamesH sent me to a sexist anti-feminist religious site. In conjunction with his other attitudes it suggests a reactionary approach.

RE: films. I don’t recall saying that those attitudes are generally around today. In today’s films they are much worse and more open. Leigh’s attitude to women is reminiscent though.

HRS Re: “If women were interested in avoidable deaths to women, then they should be interested in falls, intentional self-harm, accidental drowning, transport accidents, and general accidents, but rarely do feminists talk about such things.” You could say the same about certain men’s groups.

No I don’t want to marginalise and demonise males. I want you to stop marginalising and demonising yourselves.

Ronnie peters,
So you are not attempting to marginalise and demonise males, but you want to join the WRD?

Do you want men to chop off their arms and throw themselves under a bus also, or is this something you don’t want to talk about, at present.

Could you please point out just one example where the several authors of this article have carried out the following: -

Attempted to not marginalise and demonise the male gender.
Attempted to write a balanced and non-gender prejudiced article.
Attempted to not mislead the public.

At present I cannot find even one example.

Retarded-bulldyke-posing-as-a-man wrote:

"I want you to stop marginalising and demonising yourselves."

There is simply no way that you can justify this in the slightest. It is by far the most ridiculous thing said in this entire discussion. This is even worse than that "women can't tell men being violent on television are violent" thing.

I asked how we were supposed to be demonising ourselves before and you said "violent men demonise themselves", so once again:

Are you calling us all violent and blatantly perpetuating a stereotype specifically designed to stir up hate, because that's the only way you can reconcile this statement with *us* demonising men, or are you just a bag lady with alzheimers?

And of course, when we say that studies show there are just as many male victims of domestic violence as women, and that there needs to be focus on male victims and you say:

(1) Any data that doesn't show men are responsible for 99 to 1 instances of domestic violence, is "Internet propaganda", which dismisses the male victims included in:

153 empirical studies and 43 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

And the latest Australian Personal Safety survey to name only some academic and governmental studies which say the same.

(2) The focus should be on female victims (which IS SYNONYMOUS WITH MARGINALISING MALE VICTIMS YOU TWIT)

(3) A paper that says that even female violence towards men is in a context of "patriarchal oppression", so should be disregarded, is reasonable and the correct way forward.

You are actually helping male victims and we are brushing them aside.

Yes. That makes perfect sense. My "retarded" comment is not an insult, it is a provably accurate description.

Seems to me that the only people that really support these campaigns are either:

1. Nazi feminist man haters.
2. People who logic completely eludes to the point of belonging in a mental institution.
3. Both.

Happy Bullet: says: “The cause of domestic violence is patriarchal oppression". I responded. “Of course it is (negative) when men use violence to oppress their women." You respond: “Oh this is ridiculous. You previously said it wasn't your theory, now you are stating it explicitly. You are wildly inconsistent to the point of being juvenile.” Happy Bullet you need to develop your corpus callosum. You then may see that you used the word patriarchal with the noun “oppression”. In the context of the use of this negative adjective-noun combination you are wrong. There can be good and bad patriarchs. Had you just said patriarchy I would have responded differently.

JamesH :

“Bill realised this was never going to end - he committed suicide by hanging himself just over two weeks ago."

this is the side of DV we don't hear about.

sleep well Ronnie Peters.”

What a shameful way to conduct yourself. You need to own your childish behaviour. I am sick of your excuses. That JameH immediately assumes( a) I am dysfunctional and( b) a woman (my mum) is responsible because of my resistance to his position is indicative of biased ,sexist thinking and a person so conditioned by propaganda that he can’t reason. Of course, JamesH sends me to blatantly sexist links while complaining about WRD.

JameH et al Maybe you should listen to the experiences of women who have suffered at the hands of the justice system too. White Ribbon Day is a great idea and the links you sent me to are mostly one-sided opinion. Seeing the naff attitude and limited vision it has instilled in your thinking you can be sure I’ll stick to sensible articles and my own many experiences and the accounts of many people who have been harmed. And it has never and never will be limited to just women. I don’t understand the logic that says” “If you support this - then you mustn’t support that.” Try stop thinking in black and white terms. Then maybe you will understand things a bit better

Domestic violence is due to patriarchal oppression?

So, when my mate was hit across the back of the head with a heavy metal object whilst watching TV (for the upteenth time), by his lovely, kind, caring, nuturing and gentle soul of a mentalist wife, that was er, patriarchy in action?

hen she stabbed him in the shoulder blade with a kitchen knife, that was patriarchal oppression?

Men are EXTREMELY likely to refrain from admitting experience of violence at the hand of a woman. Its not 'manly' to admit being beat up, especially not by the 'weaker sex.' Men reserve their greatest fear of shame and loss of face in this regard, in the face of women. Women dont like weak men (contrary to PC feel-good rhetoric). Women understand who has the strength implicitly, that human-beings are animals and in the real world if you push, you get shoved back. To this end, the greatest disdain for a weak man is carried by women.

Yes, l know men have to take responsibility... so do women.

l suspect that male victims of domestic violence are much higher than reported, due to the stigma. Especially now that the definition of domestic violence has been expanded to include psychological and emotional abuse. It make no dufference that such abuse is buried in passive-aggressive, subtle, indirect manipulation... it stands.

There is an idea that when people want to do something stupid (like making preducial laws), one should step up and give these people maximum support in their fool's mission and loudly proclaim who they are. This will hasten the inevitable demise and everyone will know who is responsible, which will put the fools outta business for a long time.

Careful what you wish for, you might get it.

I think women should be allowed their vilification of men for the few men who have abused. In as much as I think men ought to have a special day to vilify women for their child abuse. It's a recorded fact that women perpetuate the majority of child abuse. I mean if it's come down to a war of the sexes rather than the actual care and consideration of general society. We're playing feminist rules. Everybody pick your team and chose your weapons.
We'll have all this solved in no time. Oh yes the rules. The rule is that the womens team score 1 point for striking a man and the mens team loose a point every time they strike a woman. Each teams score starts at zero. Highest score wins. Go.

Retarded-woman-pretending-to-be-male wrote:

"You then may see that you used the word patriarchal with the noun “oppression”. In the context of the use of this negative adjective-noun combination you are wrong. There can be good and bad patriarchs. Had you just said patriarchy I would have responded differently."

All this proves is that you are enough of a weasel to attempt to backtrack on your inconsistencies based on a juvenile semantic argument that, because you're responding to older posts, you evidently just thought of. Stop lying. Keep up.

Fact is when you said these things the report was being referred to and the "cause of domestic violence" was being referred to.

You knew very well what we were talking about.

Here's a tip: If you are such a liar that you must try to abdicate responsibility for your position on a subject because you know you'd lose credibility, then maybe your position is wrong.

You said: The report is reasonable. The report says that female violence against men is in a context of patriarchal oppression. Therefore you think that is reasonable.

Then you tried to abdicate responsibility. Typical behaviour from someone who knows their position is wrong, but wants to take it anyway.

You then said: "violence by men is patriarchal oppression".

Apart from this being ridiculous, as it ignores even female victims of other causes of domestic violence who provably exist, I'd say that pretty much gels with my initial accusation.

Your posts remind me of this ridiculous article written by some man hating feminazi bulldyke who has rather foolishly, decided to be honest about what she believes when she writes about violence against women:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/12/357875.html

Note that this more or less says the same thing you, the author and the other WRD hate peddlers say, just less glossed over.

We can see, not so subtle women's studies students like the above, you and the feminists running the DV industry all theorize domestic violence is caused by the same thing: Patriarchal Oppression. Something out of a radical feminist playbook.

Goodbye credibility.

Ronnie, posted this "Maybe that some men’s groups attract disgruntled divorcees looking for payback is the real problem."

I then posted a story from the DIDS website about a bloke who committed suicide. There is another bloke I know of who also committed suicide in similar circumstances.

"Mama’s boys?" is what Ronnie calls us.

Ronnie then moves from moderate correction (which could mean anything) to the highly emotive rethoric of beating.(Wednesday, 29)

"the male would grab the woman and forcefully kiss her on the mouth? This is symbolic of rape." saying forceful kissing is symbolic of rape is very sick.

“"The cause of domestic violence is patriarchal oppression"RP

Cotter,
"yet she was an excellent mother who happened to marry a man who was violent in drink."

Here we have the essence of the majority of DV, alcohol or drug abuse. Not patriarchy!

Now somehow I am suppose to be able to get rid of paedohiles in the RC church? Go figure. So what if it is a religous site (I myself am not particularly regilous) it contained an article for you to look at.

I am more than likely twice Ronnie's age.

I was going to suggest that if he could leave his biase's, prejudice and anger at the door, that he go along to a DIDS meeting and to AA and Alnon.(and before you toss a hissy fit I am not suggesting you have a drinking problem) just go and listen to these peoples stories.

Now I am going to be extremely blunt Ronnie.

You are a very nasty, provocative, angry and hostile person. You accuse us of seeing things in black and white, whilst it you who is the one only seeing things in black and white.

I did not say you were dysfunctional! I said something dysfunctional is happening here!

I have never abused a woman in my life, however I have been on the receiving end more times than I care to count.

http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0407rolph.html

Happy, I think you are losing some of the value of your posts with the name calling. You have some good points to make but it's getting overshadowed by the other stuff.

I found the link you posted worth commenting on

"Even though some broken women may collaborate with patriarchal men to gain power (Condi Rice, Margaret Thatcher etc.) it doesn't change the fact that patriarchal men are in charge and allow selected token "henchwomen" into the boys club–if they identify with and behave like patriarchal men."

I'm trying to work out who the patriarchal men are who were in charge in Maggies time as PM of the UK, I thought the only one who outranked the PM was the crown and I'm fairly sure Queen Elizabeth is female. Maybe the Club of Rome or some patriarchal aliens were pulling the strings all along or maybe the UK did have have in it's top two layers of authority women for a period.

Somebody was not thinking about it when they used Maggie as an example of a broken woman with a patriarchal man in charge.

The author also opposes the gender neutral approach to DV with the only real comment being that it takes away from a focus on mens violence against women - the we were here first so you miss out approach.

The author talks about mens requirement for "emaciated super models and life threatening cosmetic surgery" - I was under the impression that the emaciated thing was because designers want the focus on the clothes rather than curves underneath. I've never been to a fashion show or bought a magazine that was mostly about super models and am having some trouble understanding how it is mens requirement.

So many of the things the author choose to blame men for seem to be mostly under the control of women (and a free choice by the women involved). We don't have any laws requiring "A" cups to get add in's do we?

R0bert

G'morning Ronnie, sleep well? I hope you said your prayers.

"JamesH sent me to a sexist anti-feminist religious site."

There is not a single link I posted which goes to a religious site!

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

Glenn Sacks on Hisside has a few interesting programs

Men and fatal attractions
www.hisside.com/1_18_04.htm

Darkness at Noon: Soviet-Style Re-education in State Mandated 'Batterers' Classes
www.hisside.com/12_7_03.htm

"It doesn't matter that you're innocent. Or that she attacked you first. Or that you both went over the line and that both of you want to put it behind you and work it out. The system will prosecute you and persecute you until you've confessed your sins--even if you've none to confess. And you're not cured until they say you're cured--even if you were never sick to begin with."

Angry Harry follows with
www.angryharry.com/esOfCourseTheresnoBloodyCure.htm

www.angryharry.com/esDomesticViolenceItsAlwaysTheSameWomen.htm

www.angryharry.com/eswerewomenoppressedinthewest.htm

(warning AngryHarry is likely to offend some people)

Researching domestic violence a disturbing pattern started to emerge. I began to notice comments about how researchers investigating domestic violence perpetrated against men were subjected to intimidation and threats of violence. Not only were there threats of violence, their books and research papers were also subjected to censorship.

Erin Pizzey founder of the first refuge had to leave the UK because of threats of violence by feminists.

It is not men who need to examine their attitudes, it is the misandry feminists.

James, a recurring theme. I referenced an article earlier in the discussion by Gelles - http://www.ncfmla.org/gelles.html (thanks to Happy Bullet for the link that lead to this) which includes the following

"The response to our finding that the rate of female-to-male family violence was equal to the rate of male-to-female violence not only produced heated scholarly criticism, but intense and long-lasting personal attacks. All three of us received death threats. Bomb threats were phoned in to conference centers and buildings where we were scheduled to present. Suzanne received the brunt of the attacks—individuals wrote and called her university urging that she be denied tenure; calls were made and letters were written to government agencies urging that her grant finding be rescinded. All three of us became ”non persons” among advocates. Invitations to conferences dwindled and dried up. Advocacy literature and feminist writing would cite our research, but not attribute it to use. Librarians publicly stated they would not order or shelve our books."

I've also heard (but not seen anything by the authors on this subject) that the authors of the "DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN AUSTRALIA:ARE WOMEN AND MEN EQUALLY VIOLENT?" were subjected to a lot of abuse for their work. De Vaus seems to be the only author of that study who still makes a link to it available via his web site and neither Headey or Scott seem to reference it amongst their research work any more (both did when I first came across it). I guess it could also be argued that they have identified some fundamental flaw in their research and want to distance themselves from it.

It seems that there are very real consequences for researchers who are silly enough to ask the wrong questions.

R0bert

Robert,
There is a lot of money tied up in the domestic violence industry and the family law or divorce industry. Of course both are inter-related.

For some people there is a lot of money at stake if / when the myth (or blatant lie) that males are the only perpetrators of domestic violence is finally exposed.

Tommie,

Your openness about recent events is admirable. Personally, I have found that the acknowledgement and feedback one can get from a site such as this to be of enormous benefit. Also, kudos for adding a fresh voice to the discussion, re. childhood development.

On fresh ideas,

I would like to repeat an earlier suggestion:

Regarding penalties for false DV accusations,

I can understand that this could reduce the abuse of AVO orders, and lend more weight to the credibility of convictions, but I think it may also deter genuine victims, both male and female, from prosecuting. If the standard of proof for DV conviction or AVO grants is raised, is there a need to impose penalties for false accusations? Such a move may be unnecessary and counterproductive.

Alternative opinions welcome.

Ronnie,

“I never accused you of that (bullying).” True, but you have complained (12/12/06, 12:37:36PM) that you have been called “bully.” Can you name your accuser, and what is your defence?

You have accused others of “bullying behaviours” as I pointed out (11/12/06-5:02:53PM.) In the context of the rest of your (12/12 12:37) post, where you personalised arguments that had nothing to do with you, it appeared you were turning my comments that you have accused others of “bullying behaviours” into an accusation from me that you had been the bully.

On physical presence,

Firstly, the internet gives posters the choice of anonymity, an opportunity to debate, and search for knowledge. Claiming the moral high ground for giving your real name is beside the point. It is a tacit accusation that we are likely to hunt you down, (which we most definitely are not.)

Secondly, my comments ”It is nigh on impossible to bully someone engaged in a debate over the internet,” and “bullying behaviour does not require physical contact,” do not mutually exclude each other. It is a subtlety, not spin. Furthermore, “bullying behaviour does not require physical contact,” was in response to “where I claimed you gave me a physical injury over the internet.” I have already shown that this comment has no basis in fact.

cont...

You now appear to have admitted making that bit up (as a joke?) You haven’t shown much sense of humour previously. Surely my comments on the dessert-dish and the spoon demonstrates my own.

Films,

Sexist attitudes against both sexes in films and TV, today are at best equal. Should we get over it, or avoid any ribbing of the opposite sex whatsoever?

(Suggestions from all-comers welcome.)

My favourite,

“Dozer: Peters has… said that … opponents of WRD as being anti-feminist, anti-equality, misogynist, rage-aholics, and cynical abusers who either perpetuate or cannot face their own crimes – no I haven’t said all that , except for anti-feminist.” (12/12/06-3:40:15PM)

I introduced the sentence (07/12/06-12:10:02PM) as follows:

“Peters and Flood have variously described opponents of WRD…

I understand that you are independent of Flood and his arguments, yet it was more than reasonable to point out that together, you were using typical tactics to avoid engaging directly with our arguments.

Also, you mentioned in the directly preceding paragraph you earlier suggestions that certain people need anger management counselling. Should you not then say “except for anti-feminist and rage-aholics?”

Your intellectual dishonesty continues. I have known a number of people, (old girlfriend included,) who use tactics such as these. Designed simply to obfuscate, they work to bamboozle an opponent trying to engage in a rational, face to face discussion, with the aim of winning the argument at any price. But they come unstuck when your comments are recorded.

ABS- Do you now accept that DV is committed at equal rates by both sexes?

Regarding Peters’ gender,

My question appears to have been answered. I did some digging and came across Peters’ comments on Winter’s previous apocrypha, “Uncovered Meat meets Mr Lust.” He states openly that he is a male, and argues against Winter’s assertion that many Aussie blokes share Hilali’s view, but also makes a comment which I find interesting given his attitude to “religious” sites:

“I can recall one time about 14 years ago when a Baptist preacher asserted that Bible okays raping one’s wife. That created outrage from other Christians (myself included).”

(I’ve been away from this debate for a couple of weeks. I was on holiday, then injured my back, and I’ve got a backlog of work to catch up on. But here’s at least a brief comment.)

Happy Bullet writes that I make false claims about the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS). He notes that the *revised* CTS does include sexual coercion, and that it does ask about the frequency of violent acts. That’s true. However;

Many studies which use CTS-style methods either were undertaken before such revisions, or don’t adopt the full revised CTS if undertaken after these revisions. Focusing on Australian data for example, Headey et al. don’t include sexual coercion, and from memory, they don’t ask about the frequency of violent acts. Similary, the ABS’s Personal Safety Survey uses only a very crude measure of frequency: once or more than once. And its injury data don’t tell us what type of perpetrator (other than their sex) was involved. And it doesn’t tell us much at all about less and more severe forms of physical aggression.

Can you tell me for example: *which* of Fiebert’s many studies use the pre-CTS2 version of this method?

This means that many of the existing criticisms of the CTS which Straus rejects do apply to many of the studies which use his method of versions of it, such as equating acts of different seriousness.

In any case, other key criticisms of the CTS still stand;

It is used only with intact couples, when much violence occurs during and after separation.

It asks only one partner in each couple about violence by them and to them, despite well-documented problems with interspousal reliability.

Perhaps most importantly of all, it ignores issues of initiation, intent or motivation, and context. It does not ask whether violent acts were initiated first or in self-defence. It does not ask about non-physical controlling behaviours. It often does not ask about fear.

One final point here. Because the CTS is a poor method, it’s poor whether we’re looking at violence against women or against men. If a guy is being systematically abused by his wife, and he hits her once in response, many applications of the CTS will treat them as equal. While other methods, e.g. which collect more data, will document the inequality in violence and the fact that he’s the one being abused.

Cheers,

michael.

Flood.

Most of these criticisms of CTS, even the false ones, are nitpicking about "how it could be better". The key point about this is that the studies used by feminists do not hold up to the same sort of scrutiny in the slightest. The most valid criticisms you put forth *are* false.

"that I make false claims about the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS). He notes that the *revised* CTS does include sexual coercion, and that it does ask about the frequency of violent acts. That’s true. However;"

I'll concede that the first edition of the CTS does not have a sexual assault scale, but it DOES collect data on frequency as a KEY aspect. Asking how often the person used that act in the last year has been included since the beginning. Saying that CTS1 did not include data about frequency is one of your false claims.

Saying "many studies don't" is deliberate distortion and a fallacy if used to generalise. Most studies do follow the methodology. There were *153* studies cited by Fiebert. If some don't, then that is a drop in the ocean.

So Strauss made it better, and CTS2 is producing the same results:

http://pubpages.unh.edu/%7Emas2/ID41E2.pdf

You should have a look at:

http://www.ncfmla.org/

Domestic violence researchers are getting pretty tired of their research being dismissed based on nitpicking and blatantly false claims.

"This means that many of the existing criticisms of the CTS which Straus rejects do apply to many of the studies which use his method of versions of it, such as equating acts of different seriousness."

False. The CTS *never* equated acts of differing seriousness. The physical aggression scale is a SCALE. It had a set of acts and a choice as to whether it was mild or serious.

I suggest you have a look through the papers at Murray Strauss' site. You've just read that paper by Kimmel and taken his word as gospel.

So you *have* made false claims. Look at Strauss site.

I'll have to answer two of your other points in a later post.

RObert: You want to understand - read my posts. I’ve said my piece and you lot have a real problem accepting others disagreement graciously. Your “understandings” have a bias to them that leads to weak assumptions.

YesRObert. Men have a responsibility for women. That doesn’t mean they share guilt ( biased assumption). The criminals are guilty. I’ve said that. Also my response to JamesH’s guilt- trip attempt should have led you to understand this.

You say: “You have the impression that the number of male victims are too small to worry about.” NO. I stated that I don’t dispute YOUR specific concerns. RObert if it is 80/ 20 or 50/50 isn’t the point. If it was 20/80 I’d still hold my gendered, experience-influenced position-like you. I haven’t attacked your concerns for male victims. You’re undermining concern for women to gather support for your concern.

Equality for men - No. Must be needs based. Construction of a female on male- rape-victim centre probably isn’t needed; and taking such men into a women’s crisis centre at such a time is insensitive. Stop this pretentiousness - embrace your gender and work for a male-only refuge.

RObert you say: “…and that you may hold men responsible for the times when men are hit by women.” You must think I am such a hypocrite to suggest that. My non-gendered views on provocation and disproportionate violent responses have been stated. Don’t waste my time with baited questions. That I accept some responsibility for my fellow males abusive behaviour is just the way I am.

Our life informs yours/my decisions - both are (albeit you deny) gendered approaches. My direct concern is with an article that was helpful in drawing attention to some problems with WRD. Your male-victim response is to be critical of Bronwyn’s feminist response. Gendered! I am not hassling you for not supporting feminists; so don’t attack me for not supporting your endeavour. I am opposing (defending) here because you are helping to undermine something that can lead to positive outcomes for women and men. You eventually just have to accept/reject this opinion

RObert: “As for ronnies comment regarding males being vilified less than mossies maybe that perception is based on never having tried to get help regarding an abusive spouse (but then I've never been mossie either).” RObert I have, among other experiences, first hand experience with trying to get justice and help for my daughter when an abusive partner bashed her. I’ve had my front teeth knocked out as a lad defending my sister against her first husband – later killed in a fight (JameH too wrapped in your conditioning to consider this possibility). RObert I don’t need to use my imagination to empathise. I get upset that certain women are still treated like dirt in our society too.


Bullet attributed this quotation to Ronnie Peters.

RP: "So then you are blaming women for having no indication that men acting
like Elvis [ on television no less ] would act in a way I percieve to be
violent, but finding out they would later. HOW COULD THEY HAVE KNOWN?!?"

That claim is misleading. It is hypocritical to accuse others of tactics. I know Bullet and JamesH don’t represent people who are more genuine in trying to find (rather than bully through) solutions to the problems affecting male victims of violence.

RObert that you went to another thread and claimed that I was “nasty” was mischievous and unfair. However another example of your unconscious bias is seen when you say that I am “nasty” (boosted) Bullet is just “name calling” (downplayed). Honestly compare my posts to Bullets. I am not a red-faced bull dyke (HB’s hateful, sexist and biased assumption) and a retard (derogatory and pointless assertion). Bullet’s behaviour suggests a deep irrational hatred of anything that he think is inferior to him.

RObert’s Post 12 December 2006 10:20:22 PM was the last one that I have read. I am not going to expose myself to any more of these abusive, misleading and nonsensical posts. The excuses for this behaviour are just that – excuses. You all complain that feminists and academics won’t engage you in debate and now I understand why.

Ronnie Peters,

You have written many words, but you havent answered my questions.

Could you please point out just one example where the several authors of this article have carried out the following: -

Attempted to not marginalise and demonise the male gender.
Attempted to write a balanced and non-gender prejudiced article.
Attempted to not mislead the public.

Michael Flood,
Would you like to answer those questions. I hope your back is feeling better, and I also hope you are not going to malign males in the future.

ronnie peters

If you want to honestly portray the care and attention to DV in Australian society post the number of refuges for females and the number of refuges for males and how the government funding is allocated. As long as there are people like you and others who argue to keep DV an issue of sex and female victimization and support the feminist dominated administration of care providers DV will never be more than a political ploy to advance feminism and the demonization of men.
I have worked in the health industry for 30 years and for the last two years my institution has worked with a womans refuge and outreach programme. We're not allowed to mention the name of the woman only refuge and we're not allowed to talk to the women. It's our job if we do either. I don't like the idea of any care facility working in secret and argued this point from the beginning but, to no avail. Money talks. truth walks. Then I began to hear the what and how of their consultation. Way too much anti-male rhetoric, way too much anger being transmitted by the all female staff to be helpful once the patient is back in society.
By making and supporting DV as an issue of sex and making statements that men are responsible for women, is a guarantee that the numbers of hateful women and hateful men will increase and that any true and practical measures for healing and social care will be left to the whim of the ongoing feminist battle of the sexes. Your position might be politically correct but, it isn't morally or ethically correct. DV is not an issue of sex. Both sexes contribute to DV. DV is an issue of human psychiatry. Men and women share the burden equally. Men and women should share in the care and treatment equally and not be segregated by sex to be treated in isolation.

"Perhaps most importantly of all, it ignores issues of initiation, intent or motivation, and context. It does not ask whether violent acts were initiated first or in self-defence. It does not ask about non-physical controlling behaviours. It often does not ask about fear."

Other factors which seem to be neglected are history of alcohol and drug use, mental illness and acquired brain injury. Even prescription medication can and does have undesirable side effects.

“Their main(arguement) was that the studies showing equal violence between the sexes used flawed methodology. Yet the same methodology has been used in studies which show women alone to be the victims of domestic violence.

Similarly, they complained about the ‘validity of self-reported data’ which were possibly compromised by failures of candour or memory’ because there was no consensus about the use of terms like ‘hit’ or ‘grabbed’ or ‘used a knife’, or what violence meant. Precisely the same terms, however are used by researchers who claim that women are abused by men. So once again their criticism was highly selective.”
Melaine Phillips the sex change society p.138

I find it interesting that Michael is now talking about exploring 'intent' and 'context'.

"Research stops when it stops showing women as victims." Warren Farrell

Around two decades ago a man who rang a phone survey (Adelaide) into DV was told they were only collecting data on women.

We have had two decades or more of campaigns about DV against women and zilch for men. Sure it is easier to measures bruises and broken bones and much harder to measure emotionally broken people.

"Women emerge as aggressors in Alberta survey
67% of women questioned say they started severe conflicts"
http://www.franks.org/fr01060.htm

Domestic violence campaigners accused of bias
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10410452

Reply to Flood contd..

"It is used only with intact couples, when much violence occurs during and after separation."

It is true there is no attention towards this in the CTS, but then mentioning this in the context of domestic violence is about the same as mentioning statistics from a third world country to support a campaign in a western one (which has been done). If it's after separation, it's not domestic violence, or IPV by definition, which is why the CTS doesn't measure it.

It seems to contradict police reports that it is significant in comparison to actual DV and it certainly contradicts advertising campaign's focus on a woman being beaten in a home, which this would not be.

"It asks only one partner in each couple about violence by them and to them"

I don't see this making any difference. Men and women are interviewed, they don't have to be partners.

"Perhaps most importantly of all, it ignores issues of initiation, intent or motivation, and context. It does not ask whether violent acts were initiated first or in self-defence."

Let's cut to the chase. You believe DV is primarily caused by "patriarchy" right? That's what you mean when you talk about intent, motivation and context. If you believe it, come out and say it instead of dancing around it so you don't lose credibility.

Recent CTS2 studies do look at this stuff and they have found that mutual combat outstrips one-sided initiation by around 100%. When mandatory arrest laws were in place in the US women were taken to jail for DV in droves. So feminists had "primary abuser" legislation enacted to blame the man, due to this unproven context of "patriarchy", even if it was mutual combat or even purely female initiated.

Men's concern that if their spouse provokes or starts a fight, THEY will just have to cop it for fear of being sent to prison themselves is very valid in the face of this.

"It does not ask about non-physical controlling behaviours."

False again. The threats and intimidation scale was present in CTS1.

“If it's after separation, it's not domestic violence, or IPV by definition,”
Interesting point Happy Bullet.

The time after separation involves an enormous amount of interpersonal stress. It is a period of grieving, with all the feelings associated with the grief process and as with any grief process unresolved issues can surface. Added to the process is that sometimes people involved what to hurt the other party, such as depriving the other parent of contact with the children or hurting the other emotionally and psychologically.

The behaviour of one party can escalate the situation. According to a psychologist from the family court, the vast majority of abuse is perpetrated by the women.

If one looks at Tom’s Tale by George Rolph or in Tony Millers diary (27 June 2006) it is easy to see how it all spirals out of control.

Feminist philosophy is that this is about patriarchal power and control, yet reading the stories there is a strong sense of helplessness and powerlessness. The term maternal gatekeeping applies, with tragic consequences. Grief becomes so overwhelming that any sense of perspective is lost. Very little empathy is shown to men experiencing this situation.

CTS may catch his behaviour and not her behaviour that for all intensive purposes initiated this destructive spiral. Once started it is almost predictable the course that it will take.

Contolling behaviour can also include such things as 'baiting' or other behaviour designed to make the other person respond angerily or pushing emotional buttons.

Signing Out

My lesson from this debate and the original article have only convinced me further to pick up the reins from where my brother left off and continue his fight for social justice and the protection of children.. By the way that means working a 100 hour week, which the government delights in not paying you for.

I have included a link to Brave Hearts which has an online petition for the call of a Royal Commission into the failure of Federal, State and Territory governments to prioritize the protection of children. My brother worked very closely with Hetty Johnston on a number of cases and issues dealing with the Child Protection Act. Please take a moment from your valid point making and sign it! http://www.bravehearts.org.au/

None of us condone the final act in my brother’s life, but we did condone and support his tireless work ethic toward those who had become vulnerable to all acts of violence. An irony I realize only to well. However, to have him used as a statistic and a poster case to benefit the biased argument of those feminists involved shows only too well their lack of non biased research. Did anyone of them dare ask what the hell may have gone wrong with this man, when his pathology showed no previous acts of DV? Did they dare ask whether he was suffering at the hands of DV?

There would be no hysterical gain for the Feminists if effective research resulted in a balanced representation of fact and subsequent measurement of the cause and effect that DV has on men. Well the sisterhood would lay claim, that as a woman I have sold out to the male movement and that I have been dominated by patriarchal processes because I support the representation of men’s issues in society. Hmm, I guess I have also opened myself up to the level of death threats that my brother was getting.

I wish you all well and a happy festive season and hope to see you on line in 2007. Take particular care of your loved ones.

Replying to Happy Bullet, in haste;

Violence by ex-partners *is* domestic violence, at least in the vast majority of definitions. That’s why the Personal Safety Survey and many other surveys ask about violence by current or former partners. And violence by ex-partners often takes place in familiar locations, such as the victim’s or perpetrator’s home, a car, etc.

You say that asking only one person in each relationship about violence doesn’t matter, but it does. Men and women disagree about how much domestic work each does in marriages, and they disagree more about touchier issues like DV. In fact, the evidence is that men underreport their own use of violence to a greater extent than women do, and women overreport their partner’s use of violence to a greater extent than men do.

No, I don’t believe that DV is primarily caused by patriarchy. I do believe that traditional and patriarchal norms and beliefs, as well as gender inequalities, do play an important role at least in men’s violence against women. But they’re not the only cause.

Intent and motivation are important because if you and I are in a relationship and I’ve been hitting and abusing you all year, and occasionally you use hit back in self-defence, then our violence isn’t equivalent.

And in relation to the CTS, you’ve missed my point. Sure, the actual scale asks about fear, intimidation, etc., but many of the studies which *use* the CTS don’t.

Cheers,

michael.

Fiebert’s bibliography is a favourite citation of anti-feminist men’s advocates. However, it’s selective and biased. In particular, Fiebert highlights findings showing gender symmetry, while omitting findings showing gender assymmetries.

I’ll give a couple of examples.

Arriaga et al. (2004). Adolescent dating violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19.

Fiebert fails to mention that, “Although boys and girls were equally likely to be victims, girls who were victims were more likely to experience severe violence, whereas boys who were victims experienced more moderate violence.” (175)

“Girls who were perpetrators used moderate behaviors, whereas boys used severe behaviors, and girls who were victims received severe behaviors, whereas boys received moderate behaviors. Thus, although there were fewer violent boys, those who were violent were more likely to be severely violent than were violent girls. Moreover, girls were more likely to have been both perpetrators and victims in past dating relationships… than boys… these results reveal that when girls are violent, they tend to be in relationships marked by a pattern of mutual and less severe violence.” (178-179)

Jackson et al. (2000). Violence and sexual coercion in high school students' dating relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 15.

Fiebert omits for example the findings;

Among males who were physically hurt by a partner’s physical aggression, the most common reaction was to be ‘not bothered’. Among females on the other hand, the most common reactions were anger and then fear (p. 32).

More female than male students experienced sexual coercion (p. 29). Almost half the males who experienced sexual coercion were ‘not bothered’ by it, while few females reported this. Female students were more likely to feel ‘cheap’ or ‘duped’ (pp. 30-31).

As the authors note, “Gender differences in the emotional impact of the violence revealed a great deal about whether it was perceived as abusive… male students were significantly more likely to report that they felt okay or were not bothered or that they had positive feelings about violence… Coercive behaviors were experienced as significantly more abusive by female students… Only females experienced physical abuse as scary, whereas only male students thought it was a ‘‘laugh.’’”

Michael Flood,

You have written a lot about men and males, so this becomes a very important question:- Who do you actually define as being male?

Also could you please point out just one example where the several authors of this article have carried out the following: -

Attempted to not marginalise and demonise the male gender.
Attempted to write a balanced and non-gender prejudiced article.
Attempted to not mislead the public.

Hey Flood. I've gone and got the relevant information to help you out.

The CTS was revised in 1996 to include a sexual assault scale and an injury scale. That was the only major change. See the appendix in:

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CTS15.pdf

I don't see this making a significant difference to the findings of the studies prior to 1996. There is a body of CTS2 studies which are not only confirming that there is symmetry but that women are *more* violent, showing the original CTS was valid.

False claims:

- It does not measure frequency of the acts.

False.

CTS15 states, in the Comparison of original and revised CTS - simplified format subheading:

"The CTS 1 was originally developed for use as an interview schedule
rather than as a self-administered questionnaire. It had two columns of response categories, one for the number of times the respondent carried out each act in the CTS and the other for the partner's acts"

You can also clearly see CTS2 having a 0-20 scale for frequency in the appendix.

- Equates violent acts of differing seriousness.

False.

There is a set of acts, some deemed serious, some deemed minor. The items were chosen by painstaking process where, for example "slapping my partner" was deemed minor and "kicking my partner", or "beating my partner up" was deemed serious. If the only way this can be rebutted is by saying "it could have been beating them up jokingly", I'd say the methodology of using categorised items stands as making a distinction of seriousness.

- It does not ask about non-physical controlling behaviours.

False.

Look at the appendix in CTS15 again. The scale was present in CTS1.

- Does not include a sexual assault scale (false if referring to CTS2, but not CTS1)

- Does not include an injury scale (false if referring to CTS2, but not CTS1)

"I’ve been hitting and abusing you all year, and occasionally you use hit back in self-defence, then our violence isn’t equivalent."

False. The CTS will definitely pick up the difference in frequency.

I'll have to reply to your recent posts later.

ronnie, I dn't know if you are reading or not.

In my view namecalling is on a very different level to your claims that I use an alias on the site to tell lies. Again the fact that I was the target of your allegation might alter my perception and that on some other issues I've found you to be a thoughtfull poster.

Supporting females through a process of dealing with their abusive partners (and being threatened yourself) is not the same thing as facing a family law system obsessed with the male as perpetrator myth. Of walking into RA centers for medaition mast shelves of pamphlets about male DV, posters on the walls etc when you are trying to keep a viable presence in your sons life.

The system does not adequately support genuine female victims either. My impression is that the deliberate abuse of the issue is doing great harm to all victims, adult males and females and children.

Time to move on from unnecessary genderisation.

R0bert

More for Flood.

"the evidence is that men underreport their own use of violence to a greater extent than women do, and women overreport their partner’s use of violence to a greater extent.."

I searched for the articles you cited to support this and they are in Fiebert's bibliography:

Szinovacz, M. E. (1983). (Used Conflict Tactics Scale with 103 couples and found that the wives' rates of physical aggression was somewhat higher than husbands'.)

Jouriles, E. N., & O'leary, K. D. (1985). (Used the Conflict Tactics Scale with a sample of 65 couples in marriage therapy and 37 couples from the community. Found moderate levels of agreement of abuse between partners and similar rates of reported violence between partners.)

So.. it turns out they are examples of CTS studies that do include partners, that say the female is more violent.

Mind quoting what they exactly say to prove your point about differences in reporting? Looks like merely opinion inferences based on CTS scoring women's violence higher when couples are interviewed.

You then state:

"Among males who were physically hurt by a partner’s physical aggression, the most common reaction was to be ‘not bothered’."
"male students were significantly more likely to report that they felt okay or were not bothered"

This is add odds with the idea that men overreport. More importantly note that whenever it is found that women are "not bothered" it is not only seen as a travesty, but even a justification for murder (battered woman's syndrome) for example in Kimmel's paper "Male Victims of Domestic Violence" on page 11.

In men's case you seem to be saying that because they are socialised to accept female violence, they can Be A Man and suck it down. A pattern of "silent suffering" for men emerges here.

Now *that* is selective.

There are studies that say things in both directions about injuries as well in Fiebert's bibliography. Of course there will be differences in things other than the rate of violence. The common denominator is that the rate of violence is the same or higher in women. That's the point.

A good summary of this issue by Murray Straus http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID41E2.pdf

DOMINANCE AND SYMMETRY IN PARTNER VIOLENCE BY MALE AND FEMALE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS IN 32 NATIONS1

"In addition to services for male victims, many important changes can follow from the predominance of mutual violence and the predominance of parallel etiology of violence by male and female partners. We believe that ignoring these facts hampers prevention and treatment efforts, and that the needed changes in prevention and offender treatment programs include the following: Replace the assumption that almost all partner violence is male-only, with the assumption that it could be mutual violence or female-only, and that this needs to be determined at the very onset of remedial efforts. Replace the single causal factor “patriarchical system” model with a multi-causal model. Replace male-dominance as the major risk factor in need of change with dominance by either party, but only as one of many risk factors that need attention. Give equal attention to developing prevention programs targeted to violence by women and girls. Secondary prevention efforts need to be open to a variety of new approaches, of which one of the most promising is restorative justice (Mills, 2003, 2006; Strang & Braithwaite, 2002) These changes in policy and practice, rather than weakening efforts to protect women, will enhance the protection of women because violence by women is a major factor contributing to the victimization of women. When women are violent, they are the partners most likely to be injured (Straus, 2005a, 2005b). Therefore, efforts to end partner violence by women will contribute to protect women. It is time to make the prevention and treatment effort one that is aimed at ending all family violence, starting with spanking children, not just violence against women. Only then will women, as well as all other human beings, be safe in their own homes. The research reported in this paper, which shows that symmetry in mutuality and etiology is the predominant pattern world-wide, might help to achieve that end."

R0bert

"Fiebert’s bibliography is a favourite citation of anti-feminist men’s advocates." MF

"It happens all the time. People only tell one half of the story," says Eugen Lupri, a University of Calgary sociologist whose research shows similar patterns of violence against men.

"Feminists themselves use our studies, but they only publish what they like.

"As some feminists say, it's counter-intuitive. We would not expect that to be true; and if things are not expected to be true, for some people they are not true."
http://www.franks.org/fr01060.htm

Lets really and honestly look at research methodology.

If we only question and monitor violence agianst women such as the WSS, it only researchs female victims of domestic violence and thing is that the definition has been expanded from physical acts to things like emotional, psychological, financial, sexual abuse. However when there is debate about DV it degenerates down to who does the most damage physically, perhaps physical violence is at times the end result of years or decades of being on the recieving end of emotional abuse.

By definition DV is a cycle of violence, not a one off act.

We wind up with definitions that have more twistes and turns than a politican.

Gelles, Straus, Steinmetz and Pizzey have all been subjected to threats from DV advocates.

Even if it is true that young men are “not bothered” by female violence on dates (they can always walk away from these relationships), it becomes a lot more “bothersome” in marriage. The option of walking away from marriage, seems to have been taken away from men.

Furthermore, preconditioning men to suppress all feelings while both they and their children are subjected to violence over prolonged periods, eventually leaves everyone vulnerable to more extreme or fatal acts. Evidence shows both genders to be of equal capability and culpability (if not methods). What on earth made us conclude that relying on men’s self-control alone, is the only option?

Unless this has little to do with violence in the first place…

Female violence also becomes a lot more bothersome if the man has no recourse at all to stop it.

With a one-sided focus on violence against women all the time (honestly when is the focus on men?) it really is a zero sum game.

In common law a slap from a weaker person and a slap from a stronger person are still considered assault.

If I walked up to a biker and started pushing him around resulting in his breaking my nose I would be considered at fault for provoking him.

Consider the following scenario, that I first heard when I was nine years old and evidently has still not been resolved today:

"Woman breaks a vase over a man's head. Man turns around and hits woman in the face with a closed fist. She goes to hospital, he has minor cuts and bruises."

Is that wife battery? How was it preventable?

At the point that the vase is smashed on his head, what are his options? We are not dealing with men's violence "yet", so he can't call the police. If he does he will be potentially laughed at, looked on as the perpetrator, or just completely disregarded.

If he turns the other cheek, what happens if she does it again? Or again and again and again?

If he pushes her away or tries to restrain her she still has no incentive to actually stop and infact if he calls the police after that his chances of being seen as the perpetrator increase.

Now, he can end it by use of superior physical force, which is what he did.

Is he at fault?

Are laws that allow the woman to get away with VIOLENCE leading up to this and force the man in the corner going to prevent it from happening in the future?

The fact that 30+ years of feminist focus on domestic violence yielding precisely zero results has shown that is will make no difference. It is at least time to start asking when we are going to see some results from this "focus".

A brief on the partner violence aspects of the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study (which found that the most common forms of DV was mutual violence, followed by female only followed by male only) http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/170018.pdf made the following relevant comments

"Dunedin study male perpetrators of severe physical violence had extreme levels of polydrug abuse, antisocial personality disorder, dropping out of school, chronic unemployment, poor social support, and violence against victims outside the family. Among men who severely assaulted their partners, 72 percent had used two or more illicit drugs, 56 percent had left secondary school early without any formal certificates or qualifications, 51 percent had assaulted someone else in addition to their partner in the past year, and on average they had been unemployed for 20 months since leaving school. These extreme social and personal problems were not found for Dunedin study female perpetrators."

"Most men know that if they hit their partner, she is likely to be injured, the police may be called, and the police are now likely to act swiftly against male perpetrators. As a result, young men whose selfcontrol is compromised by enormous social stress, mental illness, or intoxication will be most likely to risk the consequences of hitting their partner. However, women know that they are unlikely to injure their partner, he is unlikely to call for help, and the police are unlikely to intervene. Thus, there is little to deter an angry young woman from hitting her partner. As such, women of all sorts may be apt to hit their partners, not just women whose judgment is clouded by stress, mental illness, or intoxication."

R0bert

The hypothetical.

Lets imagine that for the last 3 or 4 decades research into DV was conducted with the hypothesis that men were the victims and women were the perpetrators. This research would be called SEXIST, because it would only explore a part of the problem. Conducting research into violence against women was largely ignored, again this is SEXIST.

Lets imagine that over the last 3-4 decades ever new instances of violence against men are found by the research as more and more of human behaviour is examined under the microscope. Once acceptable behaviour becomes a new instance of DV.

Or a new interpretation is created.

A previous poster for shadow this latest newspaper article.
'Police fail battered women'
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/police-fail-battered-women/2006/12/16/1166162373997.html

In psychological terms there is the persecutor, victim and the rescuer.

some posters take on the role of the rescuer, rescuing damsals in distress which plays very nicely with the persecutor, victim.

"DOMESTIC violence experts say police are wrongly prosecuting battered women who fight back in self-defence.

And as happened in the US, laws will be changed to prescute (prosecute) more men regardless whether they were the initiator or the victim, after all ideology must be upheld, regardless of the evidence.

flood points to Frieberts bibilography as being used by MRA groups.

THe feminist DV clearing house also contains research which if exposed to critical analysis would not even gain a pass for a masters student on all other subjects except for women's studies and are about as creative as many of our politicans excuses.

Just a couple of comments-

Although it is refreshing to see Flood say that DV is not primarily caused by patriarchy, it appears to me that Flood's underlying assumptions still reflect an over-reliance on feminist theory. As has been immediately picked up by the other posters, I am amazed that he sees nothing disturbing about the fact that male victims of date violence commited by fmeales see no problem with it. As HB and Seeker have pointed out, men have no narrative lense through which to view this violence. When a woman receives so much as a shove, it is immediately perceived as DV, as a continuation of intimidation and domination by the stronger sex as a group. When a male receives a shove, there is no ideological construct through which to view this. So what. It's just a shove. It's not like she could really hurt me. From my own experience, as a male, you don't realise you're being dominated, (by violent or non-violent behaviour) until the situation gets unbearable, or until a long time later. Males should be taught the same thing as females about violence- it should not be tolerated. You don't have to put up with it.

Regarding violence committed at the end or after a relationship-

It seems to me that the argument that the CTS, (revised or original) does not take into account violence committed outside of a relationship is beside the point, if you're using it to discredit research which presents DV as gender neutral. Because if it omits violence committed by males after a relationship is over, it also omits violence committed by females. If the CTS has shown violence as gender neutral during the relationship, why do you assume that it is only the blokes who get violent at the end of a relationship?

Isn't it funny how the conversation has regenerated since Ronnie left...

Flood,

Thankyou for engaging our arguments and looking at the evidence.

Dozer,
An average male has about 50% more muscle mass than an average female of the same age, and a male’s skin is about 50% thicker (literally). If a male is given a bump or hit, then they may not even feel it, (just look at a game of Rugby League), but the same bump or hit may cause bruising or worse to a female.

What males should not be tolerating is gender prejudice, discrimination or demonization of a gender.

There is nothing in this article that is not non-gender prejudiced, does not discriminate, and does not demonize a gender, and unless there are complaints made, then such articles will simply continue.

You can make complaints to the University of Sydney via the Acting Manager, Harassment & Discrimination Resolution at p.lyons@eeo.usyd.edu.au

Ronnie, just in case you are still following this.

I've just had a re-read back through some of the posts and came across one of yours which I seem to have missed. Your comments seem at odds with what I've understood from your other posts on the topic.

One key issue seems to be tied up in "I am not hassling you for not supporting feminists; so don’t attack me for not supporting your endeavour. "

Actually I do support feminists, just not the particular variety that wants to gain by pushing men under or expect different standards for themselves to those applied to men.

If you have a look at the title of the article "Women see red on White Ribbon Day" and the core topic of the article which you claim to support it is an attack on men for not doing enough to support WRD. If you are not hassling me for not supporting it the author is doing so.

For my part you have not been attacked for supporting WRD bu for apparent support for the trrust of the article and the attacks you have made on those of us who do not support WRD in the genderised form it now takes.

--

Michael, sorry to hear about your back. I too appreciate that you have begun to engage in discussion. Please keep the involvement going, hopefully it is valuable to all.

R0bert

Men need to develop the necessary language to articulate their predicament and establish effective campaigns against female violence. This language currently reflects the “not bothered” male attitudes to undesirable female behaviour. Until we change this, the one sided view of violence will remain.

Violence is violence. What have muscle mass and skin thickness have to do with WRD and all-male responsibility for violence, other then help perpetuate the prejudice and discrimination HRS claims to be against. Guess none of us are immune to conditioning received through the language of feminism.

More on the "evidence shows men overreport female violence and women underreport male violence" claim:

http://jiv.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/12/1263

Assessment of the Reliability of the Conflict Tactics Scales
A Meta-Analytic Review
JOHN ARCHER

"This article reports meta-analyses of self-agreement and partners' agreement for physical aggression in relationships, measured by the Conflict Tactics Scales. Evidence from concordance rates was inconclusive, and the limited correlational data indicated high interpartner agreement. Differences between self-reports and partners' reports for men and women were analyzed to address the following hypotheses: Men but not women underreport their own aggression, both sexes underreport their own aggression, and men underreport their victimization. In 18 studies of couples, mean weighted effect sizes showed higher ratings of aggression from partners than from self-reports for both men and women. In 43 studies of unmatched men and women, the mean differences were smaller than for couples but were greater for men than for women. Overall, this evidence indicated systematic underreporting in self-reports by both sexes (Hypothesis 2), which was greater for men among the larger number of studies in which the men and the women did not come from matched couples (Hypothesis 1)."

That news article above and the idea that women are being arrested for violence likely in "self defence" is more myth peddling:

Richard Gelles, Ph.D, "The Hidden Side of Domestic Violence; Male Victims," 1999:

"It has often been claimed that the reason CTS studies have found as many women as men to be physically aggressive is because women are defending themselves against attack. A number of studies have addressed this issue and found that when asked, more women than men report initiating the attack."

http://www.co.san-bernardino.ca.us/sheriff/dvra/dom_viol_facts_main.htm

FACT: A survey 0f 1,000 women, perhaps the largest survey of its kind, found that 20% had initiated violence. The most common reasons for women initiating domestic violence were: "My partner wasn't sensitive to my needs," (46%), "I wished to gain my partner's attention," (44%) and "My partner was not listening to me" (43%). "My partner was being verbally abusive to me" (38%) was a distant fourth.

etc. etc.

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

Subheading: THE SELF-DEFENSE MYTH

For more information.

Happy Bullet, if you've not seen it you might also be interested in the comments from the Dunedin study I referenced recently.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/170018.pdf

"Perpetrators’ reports of their own abuse behaviors were compared with their partners’ reports of victimization to determine if couple members concurred about the perpetrator’s behaviors. Couples’ responses to the interview showed that agreement about whether specific abusive behaviors had happened was poor, as has been suggested by previous research. Study members and their partners did not agree about whether, for example, one of them had tried to strangle the other. However, agreement improved dramatically when the individual items were summed into scales that counted the variety of different abuse behaviors performed in the past year. Although members of a couple may not recall exactly the same acts, they can agree on whether or not abuse took place and on the extent of the abuse.

Agreement was even stronger when random measurement errors were removed statistically.6 This agreement reveals that disagreement between partners is due to random forgetfulness; neither partner was deliberately misrepresenting the facts in an attempt to mislead the interviewer. The statistical correlations indicate that about 70–80 percent of one partner’s report agreed with the other partner’s report. Contrary to expectations, agreement between partners did not vary with the perpetrator’s gender or with the type of abusive behavior."

R0bert

Seeker,
I think there are many women who realise that if they carry out physical violence on a male, then they are very likely to come out of it with an injury themselves, so they are more likely to carry out other forms of violence, which are more subtle but no less damaging.

Abducting the children from the father is a very common form of violence being carried out on fathers right throughout Australia, and of course that form of violence being carried out on men is much more sole destroying than a slap on the face.

There are people in feminism who are highly gender prejudiced, but saying to them that they shouldn’t be gender prejudiced is like saying to a member of the KKK that they shouldn’t be racially prejudiced. Of course it makes no difference to them

So the next step is to make complaints to the organisations that harbour them.

You can make complaints to the University of Sydney via the Acting Manager, Harassment & Discrimination Resolution at p.lyons@eeo.usyd.edu.au

Eeva Sodhi of Nojustice.info before she bacame ill, had articles on how how deceptive research was conducted.

In one research paper she showed how rather than researchers asking men questions about themselves, the researchers asked women about men and the conclusions of the paper was that men were happy with the current custody arrangements.

So rather than asking men about their attitudes or feelings, researchers asked women instead.

It is interesting this research about the levels of self reported violence and the conclusions reached.

"Gender differences in patterns of relationship violence in Alberta" asked men and women the same questions and found that women reported a higher incidence of initiating violence. Of course this does not fit with feminist paradigm.

So the next step to discount such findings is to produce a research paper which makes the level of reported violence unreliable, thereby reinforcing feminist paradigm. Unreliability maybe because people veiw different types of acts as violence and at times memory can be unreliable as well. It is possible to exaggerate or to minimize possible acts of violence.

Exposing female violence can create enormous emotional conflict within individuals and groups who ascribe the gendered belief of 'patriarchy' and 'power and privilege' in DV. The conflict can be so great that the only way the individual or groups can deal with it, is to deny it as strongly as possible otherwise to accept it as fact would mean that they would have to examine and come to terms with their own behaviour attitudes and beliefs.

Somewhat similar to the type of reaction a person has, when they are told they are hallucinating and what they are seeing is not actualy there.

JamesH,

You mean something like a father may feel after repeated denials by the justice system to allow paternity testing? Or the feeling he may experience finding out he is not the biological father to his children. Or the fear attained through violence and intimidation that renders him “not bothered” and throws him into the “rather not know” bucket.

Maybe you refer to the collective heads in sand on topics such as child abuse, abortion, or family break up. Things we would just rather not properly understand, but prefer to disguise, or even restrict access to data already held. Things that if we knew about, would break the human spirit to the point of hurting our economy, or worse, diminishing state power and/or bringing about some sort of breakdown in law and order …

Or do you infer that helpless feeling that a man may get post divorce when he loses most of his assets, all of his children and cannot achieve any judgements of meaningful access and support. The feeling he gets when the court seems interested in presenting the appearance of justice, but is unable to enforce an order the mother does not wish to recognise, or just unwilling to punish her blatant violation.

Are you perhaps alluding to the numbness felt by all surviving CSA clients?

Seeker I had not thought of the points you raise which I think are very good.

"Maybe you refer to the collective heads in sand on topics such as child abuse, abortion, or family break up. Things we would just rather not properly understand, but prefer to disguise, or even restrict access to data already held. Things that if we knew about, would break the human spirit to the point of hurting our economy, or worse, diminishing state power and/or bringing about some sort of breakdown in law and order"

I think this points to the fact that there is no absolute truth in matters associated with human relationships which tend to be or can be extremely complex.

I think many things that happen can be so sutble that they can be easily explained away.

This article is quite representative of much of what is being said about the male gender in many Universities. I have heard from male students currently enrolled in Universities that they are being treated as being some type of criminal as soon as they step foot onto the campus. This is because there are so many feminists in those Universities that portray males as being violent, sexual abusers, or oppressors of women.

There has been a loss of men from families, and there is also a loss of men from education systems. The numbers of male teachers is gradually declining, and the number of male students going on to higher education systems is gradually declining also.

If the situation in education is allowed to continue, (or allowed to get worse), then males will be gradually removed from education as they have been removed from families.

This article has been written by a University lecturer, and it is totally gender prejudiced and bigoted. If there are no complaints then Universities such as the University of Sydney will accept such prejudice and bigotry from their lecturers, and the numbers of such articles will likely continue, and eventually there are even less males in education. You can make complaints to the University of Sydney via the Acting Manager, Harassment & Discrimination Resolution at p.lyons@eeo.usyd.edu.au

HRS

after reading Daphne Patai and Hoff Sommers, there is no doubt of what you are saying is true about universities.

I get the strong impression that this is more about bullying then any real desire to address gender issues.

A tendency I have noted is that when the party line is challanged, those who support the party line will make personal attacks on those who dare to contradict them or who dare to challange the research

Premier Iemma...you are WRONG..

Wrong morally.
Wrong Legally.
Wrong Socially.

Your statement "Any man who assaults a woman is a bad character"

with no qualification whatsovever is not only incorrect legally, it is also DANGEROUS socially.

The idea that a man cannot defend himself from a knife wielding woman is contrary to the LAW, and common sense.

Self defense if lawful.

By making this public comment without qualification, you have contributed to irresponsible violence against men by woman, who will now feel they are protected by the Law and public Opinion.

Shabby... very shabby indeed....and you are Premier ?

And here’s an example of the “softer”, “kinder” female violence we don’t wish to recognise because we lack the necessary stats. Increasingly women appear to be doing their own dirty work, although Iemma’s recent statements on violence against women, indicates this may be a slow transition.

"It's surprising, it's not common for women to carry out such acts," Insp Ellis said.
"Statistically speaking, one would not expect a woman to be the perpetrator of such a crime."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Teens-on-murder-charges-over-body-in-bin/2006/12/21/1166290673236.html

Wonder how we would feel if it was a man’s body found. Guess also, we can safely rule out sexual abuse, and defense or retribution thereof, as motives.

http://www.ifeminists.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.67

Alas, masculinity has come under siege. All manner of unpleasant things that happen to women are blamed on those linear-thinking, knuckle-dragging males. Even young lads are viewed with suspicion - earlier this month a 4-year-old boy in Waco, Texas was placed on in-school suspension following an unwelcome hug of a teacher's aide.

In January, Kate O'Beirne released her no-holds-barred critique of the Ladies in Lavender, Women Who Make the World Worse. Noting that the "modern women's movement is totalitarian in its methods, radical in its aims, and dishonest in its advocacy," the book intones, "we depend on manly characteristics to keep us safe. Every single one of the dead firemen on 9/11 was a man."

Yep I guess even this 4 year old boy needs to examine his own attitudes.

I think some quotes from George Orwell;

Orwell states, "Somehow it seemed as though the farm had grown richer without making the animals themselves any richer— except, of course, for the pigs and the dogs."

The 7 Commandments are abridged for the last time, simply reading, "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others."

JamesH, glad to see you still posting.

The Internet men's rights "group" (more a collection of around 1,000 or so men) I am involved with is currently having a bit of a recruitment drive, so if you or any other guys on here are interested in having a look, we are trying to get people to have a look at:

http://www.mgtow.net/

and:

http://dontgetmarried.proboards75.com/

Which is an interim public forum that we are using for new people to join in the discussion.

This page, which is an aggregate of pertinent men's rights articles from around the web on the domestic violence issue may also be of interest:

http://mgtow.net/ipbforum/index.php?showforum=22

cheers

"I have witnessed liberal totalitarianism on many fronts as both a lawyer and a judge, but it is fair to say that I probably would not have written this book if I had not had my own, very direct run-in with the tyrants of tolerance. That unpleasant personal experience forced me to do some serious thinking about what is happening to American law, how it is happening, and who is making it happen. And finally it convinced me to write this book, and to accept whatever consequences came from publishing it.

That run-in occurred when I dared confront one of the most active elements of liberalism: the radical feminists.

“Manifesting Bias”

If Social Security is the “third rail” of American (Australian) politics, then sex is the third rail of American law. Anyone who touches it, except in the manner approved by the tyrants of tolerance, is fried. In this realm, the tyranny of tolerance is best described as rule by the radical feminist cadre of liberalism. Like the rest of the illiberal liberals, femifascists display single-minded devotion to imposing their tyranny on the American people—and will viciously punish those who resist."
http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780307393562&view=excerpt

How Do People React When There's Abuse in Public, But the Gender Roles are Reversed? How Would You React?

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=2741047&page=4

Spotted another add this morning depicting violence against a male by a women. The violence itself was small but it's hard to imagine any advertiser turning the genders around (might have to change the other key fact as well).

Very pregnant woman standing next to a man sitting on a bus. She prods the man with her belly, he looks up from her reading then looks down again. She takes out an inflatable toy (no not that kind) and starts belting him around the head with it. He flees the attack and she gets the seat. The point, people who give up their seats all work for the bank paying for the add.

All able bodied people should give up their seats to obviously pregnant women, the elderly and the disabled. That applies to women, men and children. That is a matter or courtesy and in some cases the rules of the transport provider.

It is never acceptable for someone who thinks they should have a seat (or other courtesy) to initiate violence against another person to get it (even with an inflatable toy).

Nor is it only men who should give up their seats for the less able and all to often public comment on this issue seems to only be about men needing to give up their seats.

In my view this kind of advertising just perpetuates the idea that it is OK for women to assault men other than in self defense.

R0bert

I saw the ad that you are referring too.

My general feeling is that this type of ad should not be allowed. It uses humor to disguise violence and even though the hammer was a plastic inflatable one.

I saw the add again. The bank was The Commonwealth Bank.

I also noticed that sitting behind the guy was a woman who did not give up her either (maybe she was pregnant).

Soft selling violence.

R0bert

I am all for giving up seats to women ,but this ad about manners is indeed in very poor taste, even if he probably did deserve a whack aroud the ears with a foam object .The other one on a woman letting a door slam on a box laden man is also a bit "off".
Certainly won't encourage me to open up a Commonwalth a/c -they were the bank that INVENTED the long que .
Also were the first bank to close down in our local town .
Just a thought,I wonder how many single mothers will encourage good door opening manners and "standing-up "for women as part of life for their young sons ?

There's an icecream ad out now where a whole bunch of blokes get a wrap over the ears from their girlfriends for turning their head when a new girl in a bikini walks into the swimming pool enclosure. Open season has been declared.

Have any of you heard about the feminist critique of classical music. It nearly destroyed my enthusiasm for music when I was studying music in the late 90's. It follows as such;

At the first level, you have the problem that all the great composers were men. The suggestion that this was the product of a society which did not value the contribution of women or did not provide the same opportunities to women in the public sphere is fair enough. One could argue that as the sales for male and female artists is now roughly equal, (although the top jobs in the music industry may well be mostly male,) a lot has been done since the 1800s to remedy the situation. There is also a general acceptance in musicology literature that the masculine and feminine are portrayed in various ways.

But the attack goes far deeper. Susan McClarry, in Feminist Endings, suggests that males and females write in a fundamentally different manner. But as males occupied the chief positions in the music world, as in the rest of society, females were forced to write in a masculine manner. For all her talk about social constructions and social conditioning, the crux of her argument basically boils down to the rather crude observation that the differences betweeen male and female composition are directly related to the differneces between the male and female orgasm.

At her worst, McClarry slanders Beethoven. Referring to the violence of his third Symphony, the great Eroica, she argues that he "rapes the audience."

You'd be amazed how demoralising this drivel can be on young male musicians and composers. Feminist theory must be allowed to be criticised in an unemotional manner, and with an unemotional response. If unchallenged, it can do a lot of damage.

Dozer, feminists have to reduce things down to a sexual level, basically as Daphne Patai pointed out in Heterophobia to use inflammatory analogies, which trick our brains into thinking or comparing sexual harrasement is the same as rape.

Basically by hooking the emotional response, the more sensible intellectual analysis is over riden. Inflamming the emotions has been used by groups in the past to commit otherwise horrific acts, for example the lynch mob mentality, or the KKK.

It takes an extrodinarily strong person to rise above the mob mentality.

I do not know if this link has been posted before.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/search/story.cfm?storyid=000A40AC-F46C-1556-B73C83027AF1010F

Domestic violence campaigners accused of bias
Monday November 13, 2006
By Simon Collins
"Two top health researchers have accused the Families Commission of "ideologically driven" bias in presenting domestic violence as a problem of men battering women."

James I'd not seen that article previously but I have posted links to a summary of the partner violence findings of the Dunedin study on this thread http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/170018.pdf - for those who think the link is to a radical mens group try again, the document is a research brief for the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

The point at the end of the NZ Herald article about a bob each way is spot on.

Those who want to insist that family violence is heavily genderised are at the same time suggesting that they are talking about a very wide range of violence. When confronted with the evidence they switch the debate to the most extreme forms of violence between adults (ignoring the of deaths of children at the hands of women).

R0bert

Robert, I think that, that type of manoeuvring is called 'rationalization'.

"They deal with conflicting evidence, by selective perception, compartmentalising, rationalising, by attacking its credibility, or by demonising the messenger. "

Sociopathic Behaviour
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/health/sociopathy.html

Personally I think that if more attention was paid to less dramatic family abuse and the perpetrators of that abuse then we would seen a decline in the much more dramatic forms of abuse such manslaughter and murder.

I have read where women will provoke men in order to get a response from them. so to be really honest we need to look at what part this applies in the final acts of DV. Although this will sit very uncomfortably with gendered and radical feminists.

Another interesting site I discovered.
http://www.dvstats.com/

James whilst a corrupt system does not excuse violence I suspect that a fairer family law system might also reduce the more extreme cases.

Leaving people with little or nothing to lose and C$A there to make moving on difficult if not impossible must push some over the edge.

In the end violence is the final responsibility of the perpetrator regardless of the provocation but those who provoke it also bear some responsibility.

R0bert