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)