"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.