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.