Bronwyn said: “… these stories are simply among the most recent in the unending horror stories of male violence, and retaliation against women who speak out.

“Such retaliation is given more power not only by the proliferation of so-called “men’s rights groups”, as well as the writings of some male academics such as Michael Woods (University of Western Sydney) who seek to discredit research and testimony on male violence, but also by the media, which continue to sensationalise and trivialise it with tawdry headlines…”

All of which makes it terribly important that initiatives such as WRD exist… “ I agree.

After seeing the negative approach of some men here, I’d say, that their behaviour confirms what women are up against. I am called a retard, ridiculous, whipped, bully, liar, implied that I am responsible for a suicide in June long before my comments; I must be woman; must be on pay roll; implied I have been mistreated by my mum; been caught wanking; and so on,on and on.. I must be doing something right. The characteristic behaviour of people genuinely interested in social justice - even for male victims – is not seen here.

RObert your posts come back to how you feel –as a male. There are plenty of women who still don’t see justice. “Human” this and that is just an angle to undermine positive activities like WRD. RObert men that you are talking about are not vilified as much or as unreasonably as mossies. Not too interested in the vilification of Ronnie. You ignore JamesH : “The Last Time I Hit A Woman” shouldn’t that be “human”? Just an angle.

Youlot had a choice - to leave women who operate rape crisis centres and domestic abuse refuges for women alone - or undermine those women, their work and opinions. You had the choice to just present your own male-victim position but instead you chose to try and ruin the good work of people organising WRD. I support wholeheartedly the women/ men and organisations behind WRD. I love the positive approach of White Ribbon Day website.

Ronnie Peters,
You can join the WRD, but the WRD has not shown any interest in presenting balanced, objective and non-gender prejudiced information.

If you are a male you would have to unquestioningly believe everything the WRD tells you.

If they say that you are a rapist because you are a male, then you would have to believe that.

If they say that you assault women because you are a male, then you would have to believe that.

If they say that you are a murdered because you are a male, then you would have to believe that.

If they say that you should chop off your arm and throw yourself under a bus because you are a male, then you would have to believe that.

You cannot say that you have not been warned.

HRS, from what I've seen on the WRD website they are not as unbalanced as that. They do give recognition to men as victims of DV and I don't think that they are pushing the line that all men do the stuff you talk about.

My issue with them is that by doing their public focus only on male violence against women they perpetuate some very damaging beliefs. If their campaign was run in a broader environment where violence committed by women was addressed to some degree then I'd have no real issue with their work (except for the sick imagery which even Michael Flood seems to have concerns about).

As for ronnies comment regarding males being villified less than mossies maybe that perception is based on never having tried to get help regarding an abusive spouse (but then I've never been mossie either).

R0bert

Ronnie Peters,

I never implied that you were responsible for the suicide of a man. If you read the article from where it came from it was about a guy who realised that the battles with his ex were never going to end, so he took his own life.

Is not threatening another person with not ever seeing the children again DV?

Nor did I imply that you had been mistreated by your mum. I wrote about boys being mistreated by their mothers, firstly because I know about it and secondly I am trying to explore some ideas, because there is something going on here which I can not put my finger on.

If I beleived that these things applied to you then I would have said so directly.

The 'Last time i hit a woman' is a direct quote from the article.

There is something very dysfunctional happening here!

"Bronwyn said: “… these stories are simply among the most recent in the unending horror stories of male violence, and retaliation against women who speak out."

“Such retaliation is given more power not only by the proliferation of so-called “men’s rights groups”,

There are plenty of female writers who are challanging people like Bronwyn, yet you ignore them and focus purely on men and men's groups.
Erin Pizzey, Cathy Young, Wendy McElroy, Eeva Sodhi, Melaine Philips, Bettina Arndt to name a few.

If research cannot stand up to scrutiny then it is faulty research.

On one hand women say they want men involved in discourse then on the other because men are not saying the things that they (women) want to hear, we get accused of being violent, abusers etc.

Read Daphne Patai, Hoff Sommers, Melaine Philips and Erin Pizzey they should be in the uni library if they haven't been censored. Then read Warren Farrell, David Thomas, Thomas Ellis, Phillip Cook, Maggie Hamilton, Katie Roiphe, Richard Hise,

It sounds like Bronwyn really has it in for Michael Woods.

Read all those authors then you can come back and tell me I'm mad, sexists, what ever.

"Sophistry" Patai uses alot.

Dozer: “(Incidentally, are you suggesting my username is a subconscious indication of unresolved anger? I have no idea what you mean by that little FYI.)” For Your Information (FYI)I think from memory I was referring to a complaint from someone about my suggestion that certain people needed some anger management. That “anger management” is just about controlling violent men is not what these programs are about. They also undo some of the socialisation of men. Living up to the tough-guy male is often the reason men won’t report violence to police or friends. I have already explained this to you. I thought I was supporting RObert’s piont of view. Anger from “dozer” – no.

Dozer: Peters has… said that … opponents of WRD as being anti-feminist, anti-equality, misogynist, rage-aholics, and cynical abusers who either perpetuate or cannot face their own crimes – no I haven’t said all that , except for anti-feminist.

Dozer you say: “’where I claimed you gave me a physical injury over the internet,’ suggests that you do not read our responses very closely. “ Where is your sense of humour. You accused me of complaining about “bullying behaviours”. I never accused you of that and can’t recall ever debating you elsewhere. Your line “there is no physical presence to reinforce verbal intimidation,” is debatable. I use my real name and I am in fairly accessible.

And to top it off you say that “bullying behaviour does not require physical contact.” Elsewhere you say:” It is nigh on impossible to bully someone engaged in a debate over the internet.” You’re spinning too much even for me. You say my supposed “misreading, bares remarkable similarity to an old girlfriend”. Maybe it was you confusing her after all.

Dozer points “You may have noticed that the ABS has no starts (sic) for male victims of DV.” Dozer I was agreeing that the ABS site was slack for not having stats on male victims of domestic violence. So I was wrong - they do have the stats. My 100 to 1 statement was qualified but I do wonder.

Retarded-woman-posing-as-man wrote:

"After seeing the negative approach of some men here, I’d say, that their behaviour confirms what women are up against."

If you're starting to realise that the negative approach of:

1) Focusing on blaming men only
2) Fallaciously deciding that all men are responsible for violence committed in a particular fashion by a minority

With no 1 ignoring victims, being an approach that has never worked and basically encourages a concern that ALL MEN HAVE, which is: If the focus is on men only, then WOMEN'S-VIOLENCE-AGAINST-MEN-WILL-INCREASE-AS-A-RESULT-OF-BEING ABLE-TO-GET-AWAY-WITH-IT.

Breeds further negativity then you're getting somewhere. Doubt that though. Your purpose here appears to be stirring up hatred against men. This confirms that men, in helping evil women like yourself, are making the mistake Chamberlain made at the start of WWII by appeasing the Nazi aggressor. I am comparing you and feminists like you to nazis. Of course you love WRD, Hitler signed the treaty stating there would be no hostility without hesitation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement_of_Hitler

Coming soon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement_of_radical_feminists

"I am called a retard, ridiculous, whipped, bully, liar,"

Asides from almost all of these being provably true, particularly "liar" and "ridiculous" are you saying that you consider being called say "a bully" to be offensive? Precisely what feminists are doing when they one-sidedly attack men for "violence". Fact is, THESE CAMPAIGNS ARE ABUSIVE THEMSELVES. By not opposing this sort of thing men are simply telling feminists "I allow you to emotionally abuse me". And you expect men to SUPPORT nazis like YOU do that?

I am beginning to doubt feminazis actually expect men's support. They'd rather use underhanded tactics to stir up hate when we don't support something that is clearly an attack on us.

"I must be doing something right."

Obviously!! Your posts here have highlighted the feminist involvement in DV being solely about feminism as a hate movement against men. Men having been subject to this for YEARS then witnessing a woman being beaten are going to stop to think why they should do a whit more than shrug and continue with their day. Great work What a hypocrite.