(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?