(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