Below is a link from Cornflower. What a gendered weekend? They call me sexist.
http://www.mhwaq.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28&Itemid=143

Except:
Why a Men's Festival?
By Tim Easton
What do one hundred and twenty Men do for four days? - no women, no beer, no drugs, no fishing, no boat, no golf, no motorbike, no car and definitely no nonsense. Well they talk, they listen, they are heard, they share their pain and confusion - but most of all they reconnect with what it is to be a Man - balls and all.
It is rather trite to say but it is true - they are black Men, white Men, yellow Men, gay Men, straight Men, happy Men, depressed Men, Men who can sing, Men who counsel, Men who teach Yoga, Men who offer guidance, Men who want to learn to be themselves - Carpenters, Lawyers, Farmers, Doctors, Bricklayers, Salesmen, Hippies, Young Men, Old Men, Plumbers, Businessmen, Fathers, Husbands, Physiotherapists, Chiropractors, Psychologists, Homeopaths, Dentists, Labourers - I have met them all at a Men's Festival.

In Happy Bullet’s and RObert’s naff logic that equates to you and your mates being liars and inconsistent. Anyway good luck and God bless the Men’s festival.

Some men see that most aspects of paternal and manly behaviour does not exclude all men from the ability to relate to women in a fair and non-sexist way in other areas such as business, the workplace, school, politics and even events opposing violence to women -like WRD.

RObert and Bullet’s thinking is comparable to having gendered thinking because I am a Dad. I am gendered - I am male – doesn’t make me sexist though.

Cornflower I usually am careful to qualify my statements with words like “some” or “certain” and so on. Maybe you are reading a spun “quote” or it was my oversight. Read what I say not what they say I said.

I don’t understand why men like those above would object to WRD or why certain men would be called sexist if they supported it. There is nothing wrong with a men’s festival or men supporting WRD.

Ronnie,

First, you’ve made a howler:

“You may have noticed that the ABS has no starts (sic) for male victims of DV.”

Go to
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4906.02005%20(Reissue)?OpenDocument,

download PDF format of 4906.0 Personal Safety Australia. In particular, read from about p. 32 onward. There are plenty of stats on both male and female victims of DV, and at remarkably similar rates.

Regarding your attacks on the supposed religious fanatic in our midst, most links JamesH sends us are from non-religious sites. The arguments we have been making exist independently of religion.

Regarding Nuns, you will notice that I have gone to great lengths to ensure a gender neutral approach:

“the use of words male and female is interchangeable. Traits, tactics and effects of bullies are the same regardless of gender.”

“in addition to the problems preventing the abused (male or female,) from reporting abuse (by male or female,)…”

“He noted that the provocation defence had been used in a number of quite appropriate cases by both males and females.”

“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.”

“Regarding penalties for false DV accusations… I think it may also deter genuine victims, both male and female, from prosecuting.”

“a huge body of evidence suggests that at the very least, DV committed against males by females makes up a sizeable proportion of all DV in Western countries, and at best is committed at the same rate.”

However, you have misrepresented one of the few sentences where I have failed to qualify my language into gender neutral terms, to accuse me of gender bias. As HB so eloquently put it, it is very hard to lie on the internet. Ironically, that sentence’s intention was to correct the gender bias you have clearly shown. Perhaps if you study closely the PSS Report from the ABS website, you will no longer make such gender biased statements as “I think that 100 to 1 is more likely.”

Regarding the reference to Elvis,

it is diversionary to refer to a film made around half a century ago as evidence of misogynistic attitudes in today’s media. If you value context, don’t use Elvis or “the rule of thumb” as an example of alleged current male domination over females. There is no comparison between then and now.

You accuse posters of “bullying behaviours” frequently, (and, I must say, fraudulently:)

“Do you resort to emotional blackmail in your other relationships?”

“Your non-de-plume affords you the ability to slander, smear and behave foolishly without consequence”

“This orchestrated attack on my person”

These tactics you have accused others of using are prime examples of bullying behaviour.

Your query over “where I claimed you gave me a physical injury over the internet,” suggests that you do not read our responses very closely. My line “there is no physical presence to reinforce verbal intimidation,” does not imply that you perceived physical threat. (Indeed, as I have noted, bullying behaviour does not require physical contact.) It simply notes the impersonality of the internet. Your portrayal of this comment is a good example of “tell(ing) people what they’ve said with your own spin on it.”

Interestingly, you have made a big deal about posters using nicknames, as though you are somehow braver for posting your name. (You accuse RObert of using a nickname so he can slander his ex. Maybe he’s protecting the kids.) But I have never heard of you, and I couldn’t care less. (Incidentally, are you suggesting my username is a subconscious indication of unresolved anger? I have no idea what you mean by that little FYI.)

I am seriously starting to wonder if “Ronnie Peters” is not itself a pseudonym. Indeed, your method of arguing, whereby you lie about what you have previously said, and engage our own arguments by misreading them (accidentally or intentionally) and then arguing against this misreading, bares remarkable similarity to an old girlfriend. These tactics work in a face to face argument, but are useless when your words are recorded.

I’m sure others have had similar suspicions, but…

Are you actually a woman?

If feminists were interested in avoidable deaths to women, then they should be interested in falls, intentional self-harm, accidental drowning, transport accidents, and general accidents, but rarely do feminists talk about such things.

The death rate for women due to falls is about 7 times higher than for assault.
The death rate for women due to intentional self-harm is about 8 times higher than for assault.
The death rate for women due to accidental drowning is about the same as for assault.
The death rate for women due to transport accidents is about 8 times higher than for assault.
The death rate for women due to general accidents is about 32 times higher than for assault.

Assault is one of the least likely causes of avoidable deaths to women in this country, but the most publicised by feminists. Undoubtedly feminists like to portray assault to women as being a leading cause of death because of their desire to marginalise and demonise males as much as possible.

In all the above categories the death rates for men are normally 2-3 times higher than for women, but this is not mentioned by feminists either. Instead feminists now want men to cut off their arms and throw themselves under a bus.

ronnie peters said, "Below is a link from Cornflower. What a gendered weekend? They call me sexist.
http://www.mhwaq.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28&Itemid=143"

Well yes, ronnie, you would indeed be more than a bit sexist if you object to that group which has done a lot of good for men and women. Do some real research and you will find women applauding its results.

I cannot find any problem with their wording to promote the activity - it is just a bit of fun (the wording) nothing more. Maybe you are seeing what you expect to see and that is the problem. That could come from having to defend yourself too often.

Thanks for saying 'some' when referring to men. Most men (in fact all with few exceptions) are very nice to know, fair, loyal, safe and utterly reliable. Just like most women. Fat lot of good 99.99% of men and boys get out of the much maligned patriarchy. Maybe that concept is just a paper tiger invented to scare us enough so we suspend our judgement and accept blindly what is being said (allegedly) on our behalf.

ronnie, "I don’t understand why men like those above would object to WRD or why certain men would be called sexist if they supported it."

Perhaps it's because you've not tried to understand, instead running with conclusions about those of us who object to the one sided portrayal of DV and putting everything through the filters of your views about those evil mens groups.

We have tried over and over to explain why we have a problem with the representation of DV as a male only problem, guy's get abused because it's obvious that society does not have an issue with female to male violence.

WRD with it's one sided portrayal of the issue is another brick in the wall.

I also stand against the misrepresentation of DV and child abuse because I think they contributes to harm to children and injustice in the various aspects of the family law system. The impression that DV and child abuse are male problems rather than human problems is openly used by some groups to oppose family law reform with claims of "protecting women and children".

You make a principled stand againt the same kind of villification of mossies that you expect us to stand up and support on the DV topic.

In my view (and I may diverge from some of my collegues on this) men who support WRD are not necessarily sexist, people who villify male victims of DV are. People who knowingly use misleading statististics to support false claims about gender violence are - I'm not sure if that's you but I have not seen any sign that you have looked at the evidence about female to male violence. My guess is that you ignore it because your views about oppression let you decide that it's justified when a woman hits a male partner.

I've got no problem with gender specific activities as long as those activities are not used to create a false impression of the issue or the opportunity for an equivalent activity is denied to the other gender.

R0bert