Tommie,
I would like to offer my condolences to yourself and other members of the families of those in the tragedy that occurred in Townsville.

Let’s go back to the start. When I first posted here I had just heard that three more girls had been raped in my area.

Leigh’s talk of whinging and whining women and in light of that it got up my nose. He said: ” “Violence against women could result from the fact that some of them are always whingeing and complaining about their lot, despite the fact that they seem to get it all their own way when it comes to family law, health research, affirmative action, freedom from National Service (when it applied), and on and on: the list is endless.” Not one of you contested his statement. So all your gender-neutral carry on is not believable. No you were too busy laying into women who run rape crisis centres. I have made it clear that abused men deserve the same compassion and respect as women. But still you lot insist on claiming otherwise and attacking women like Betty and Bronwyn. You cannot be gender neutral by virtue of your own sex and gendering.

Rules for men.

Do not kill, do not rape, do not steal, do not disrespect or harm your wife or children , do not harm others except in self -defence.

These are principles that every man of every faith can embrace. These are not polite suggestions. They are codes of behaviour and those who ignore them are to be held in contempt. ( Duffy’s words I think).

Now man to men. Maybe I am biased. So what? Now the article wasn’t about family law it was about domestic violence and abuse of women. Let’s cut through the crap. Do you or don’t think these “codes of behaviour “ are simple enough to understand? Do you think that every man (spouse) should embrace them? Do you think that there are no excuses for those who breech these codes? Do you think that Leigh’s statement was over the top and it is that kind of disrespect that heard often enough may lead to rape and abuse of women? I say a firm yes to all.

Happy Bullet says: "You: Men are 100% to blame for domestic violence. (Demonising men)
You: A paper that says the primary cause of domestic violence is patriarchy, that context should be taken into account when considering claims of 50/50 abuse. (Demonising men, justifying women's abuse of men as "self defence against patriarchal oppression")"

HB I did not say that. You are dishonest. I hold firm to my opinions (violent men demonise themselves).

Now most of the things I have said in this thread your mates have put their spin and meaning on it and claimed that their meaning was my intended meaning.

Dozer: Re anger management. FYI It is an unfortunate name. Anyway the thing is these courses show that feelings of inadequacy some men feel because they are not big and tough are a product socialisation. That manhood is so much more. So should a woman assault a male he should not be held back by feelings of inferiority or unmanliness generally or when considering whether or not to lay charges. I have a mate (non-violent to women but very angry at his low-wage status and consequences) doing one of these courses and it has been helpful. So the idea that gentlemen are “whipped” to quote one of your cohorts just their socialisation which is ironically what prevents men from taking abused men’s position seriously.

You lot send me to links that tell unsubstantiated nonsense about women in rape crisis centres doing favours to police in return for favourable evidence and then jump all over me for sending you to a reasonable site that has acknowledged that female violence against males needs investigating and still it isn't good enough. Nothing will make you happy. You hypocrites are not serious about domestic violence generally; you are just interested in undermining women and men who are active in issues to do with abuse of females. I think they do a mighty job. Great Australians

I urge you all to stop this negative approach and put your position forward with some integrity. Thus far your attitude and methods have been shameful.

Ok ronnie , since you appear to have thrown me in with the Leigh position,which i don't agree with, I will post again.
As domestic violence of the psycological and physical kinds can be a problem to both men and women in relationships I suggest compulsory
year 10-12 school training on the pitfalls of relationships along with the impacts of working life stresses ,and how to spot the pits and change direction before we fall into them.
This is followed up by another compulsory 2 day workshop for couples PRE marriage with the accent on preventing violence of any kind in relationships and letting them know what the stresses are that can cause hurt and how to avoid them .
Men-haters and women-haters need specialist help programmes for their unusual situations .
I suspect men that men receive a fair bit of their abuse from their womenfolk in through their ears and that can hurt too.We generally get over it fairly quickly but there can be unseen bruising .
Perhaps the White Ribbon Day could be a White and Blue Ribbons Day with due recognition given to the violence, psycological and physical men can suffer also .
This would help a lot for both sexes to understand the problems and the need to overcome them.

ronnie peters

Why is it so hard for you to say 'some'? That is the main sticking point these respondents are talking about isn't it? Maybe they have a point: how many women would stomach being labelled as child abusers, solely because women make up the bulk of child abusers - a definition which includes child neglect?

How would you feel if a male respondent to OLO said he was so incensed by the current reports of the death of a young infant through neglect by its mother, that he felt quite OK about labelling you and all women as child killers?

The whole thrust of WRD demonises men and this campaign disempowers women as it demonises men. However it does serve to prop up the 'women as victims' industry which is about careers and research grants for middle class professional women, mainly academics and bureaucrats. I object to this because there is nothing in it for most women and it drains resources away from areas of need - two of which are youth and families.

So would it choke you to utter 'some' occasionally when referring to men (and women)?

Not being so hung up on sex could help too.

What is it about radical feminists and their sexuality? Oh that's right, most are bisexual or lesbians. That probably explains the spin and spite of the feminist elite in Oz, who seem to be overly represented in the government bureaucracies and in universities.

As far as I can see, most respondents have been more than gracious in overlooking the most obvious motivations for the shrill clarion calls of radical and gender feminists to trash men and families:

- because it suits their own lifestyle choices and wallets.

WRD is about divisiveness and more women are asking why their menfolk and young sons should be required to shoulder the guilt of a crazy mass killer who lived in Canada. He stood out in Canada because like Australia, his crime was so unthinkable.

Don't let the feminist elite disempower you by causing you to distrust every male you meet!

ronnie, I had not paid much attention to Leigh's comment and no I don't agree with what appears to be the thrust of it.

Still one comment like that (which does not appear to have been supported by other posters ) is no excuse to ignore the many valid points that have been made nor to start making personal allegations against other posters on which you have no basis to make those allegations except your own sexism. I imagine you'd be at the front of the queue to howl down any poster who suggested a woman who claimed to have had an abusive spouse was probably lying about their spouse (without any supporting evidence).

Now as for your rules lets try another version.

Rules for humans.

Do not kill, do not use sex to harm, do not steal, do not disrespect or harm your spouse or children, do not harm others except in self -defence (and only then if there are not better options).

I agree with your initial rule but having seen the very real harm done by unnecessary genderisation I'll go with the version that talks about all our responsibilities.

R0bert