JamesH,

Firstly I would like to acknowledge you and HRS who offered condolences to me and all the family members involved in the Townsville tragedy. Something is also bothering me about the underlying thread to these posts. What is not being recognized here is that the imprint of violence begins in childhood. The resultant effect that takes place upon the intellectual and emotional development of a child can leave that child non functional in a multitude of aspects. Violence is not just contained to the physical. What a child hears growing up becomes the imprint for its own ability to cognitively rationalize future information and how to express that information. Therefore, my argument is that ongoing violence exists in how we speak to each other and therefore, how we treat each other which may develop into higher risk categories of physical violence. As Erin Pizzey postulates, the “Emotional Terrorist” does exist in households and that emotional terrorist can definitely be a ‘she’.

Therefore, are we not supposed to be educated grown ups that hold great responsibility in the words that we choose to use? Until women take responsibility for their own levels of violence as is the direct responsibility of men and to constructively change their own paradigms then the derogatory accusations will go on ad nauseum and we will still be swimming in the same turbulent sea with no chance of sharing the oar. Oh by the way JamesH, your not mad or sexist or whatever.. at least you are trying to give representation to both sides of the coin and believe me as a woman I’m not afraid to say that there is two sides. As an adult I have just chosen constructively to deal with my own issues without resorting to physical or verbal violence..My best wishes to those who are searching for a holistic solution to DV

"Therefore, are we not supposed to be educated grown ups that hold great responsibility in the words that we choose to use? Until women take responsibility for their own levels of violence as is the direct responsibility of men and to constructively change their own paradigms then the derogatory accusations will go on ad nauseum and we will still be swimming in the same turbulent sea with no chance of sharing the oar. Oh by the way JamesH, your not mad or sexist or whatever.. at least you are trying to give representation to both sides of the coin and believe me as a woman I’m not afraid to say that there is two sides. As an adult I have just chosen constructively to deal with my own issues without resorting to physical or verbal violence..My best wishes to those who are searching for a holistic solution to DV"

Absolutely spot on Tommie and please accept my condolences as well.

Robert,
The WRD web-site is 1 web-site amongst millions, and most people will not even look at it. Please read through the article again, and also read through the list of names at the bottom of the article. This article is propaganda from the domestic violence industry, and most of the literature coming from that industry uses the word “men”, which means that they regard “all” men as being one and the same.

If the words “Jew” or “Muslim” or “Asians” were used instead of “men”, it would be immediately identified as being discrimination, but because the word “men” is used, it is not regarded by the media or by many University academics as being discrimination.

Eventually this type of discrimination of men will adversely affect women and also children as well, although many feminists and many University academics are presently too shortsighted and prejudiced to understand that.

This article is discriminatory propaganda. There is no mention of domestic violence carried out by women in this article, and the article uses the word “men”, which classifies all men as being the same. It is an unbalanced and prejudiced article based on gender discrimination.

You can make complaints to the University of Sydney via the Acting Manager, Harassment & Discrimination Resolution at p.lyons@eeo.usyd.edu.au

The Universities have to understand that they cannot continue to harbour gender-prejudiced people.

Tommie,
I tend to see domestic violence and childhood abuse as being a type of problem that can be solved, and all my general training in problem solving has been to define the problem first, and then try to find solutions.

Unfortunately the issue of domestic violence and abuse has become so clouded by gender politics it is now difficult to define the problem. So of course the gender politics and gender-prejudiced attitudes have to be removed before the problem can be properly defined and then solutions found. I tend to think that there can be several reasons why domestic violence and abuse can occur, and there may be several solutions, but not one single or universal solution.

Unfortunately I’ve reached the word limit.

TY Tommie and Iain for your support.

Today, a sophism generally refers to a particularly confusing, illogical and/or insincere argument used by someone to make a point, or, perhaps, not to make a point.
Sophistry refers to the practice of using such arguments, and is used pejoratively for rhetoric that is designed to appeal to the listener on grounds other than the strict logical cogency of the statements being made.

or

"subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation" (Webster)

Ronnie wrote;

"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…”

Cathy Young wrote;
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28658.html

"For most students, the "myth-debunking" critique of orthodox feminism -- the exposés of bogus and manipulated facts and statistics -- proved powerful and eye-opening. One of my most amusing moments came this year, after I assigned four readings for the discussion of domestic violence: two representative feminist pieces purporting to document a domestic violence epidemic caused by sexism and tacitly abetted by society, and two critiques explaining the dubious origin of such claims as "battering is the leading cause of injury to American women." One student lamented that he had read the pieces "in the wrong order" -- the "dissidents" first. "By the time I read the last two," he said, "I kept going, 'That's a lie!'" Interestingly, he and a few others said that our readings about ideologically motivated statistical shenanigans had left them with a healthy skepticism of all statistical and factual claims, by feminists, anti-feminists, or anyone else."

There is a major flaw in the way many of you are calling men to support your cause. The flaw is the latent hostility buried in the way you deliver your message and the sense of generalised defensiveness (guilt, responsibility) with which innocent men (the vast majority) find ourselves embued.

There is also the deeply disquieted undertow of men who are sick of being blamed for all the bad stuff in this world. Its so ingraineed these daze. We are a bit tired of your stance and personally l find myself complacently blase in the face of your concerns and issues and problems and injustices and hardship and abuse and on and on. l dont mean to be, l'm just tired of the implication. Like that comment that women have a right not to be raped by strange or familiar men. Has anyone thought that us strange and familiar men have a right not to be called latent/potential rapists. When its done in that tediously passive-aggressive, plausable deniability sort of a way, it doesnt help matters much.

If your message isnt getting thru, YOU need to figure out what YOU are doing wrong, instead of BLAMING US. Guys like me are starting to 'zone out' when you go that route. To reiterate... we are oh, sooooo, tired of that.

You have a lot of work on your hands, the worst kind, the hardest type of work. That stuff where you have to do what you emplore us to do... SELF EXAMINE.

As many of us suspect, some women seem to always insist on having the last word. In that context, WoRD makes a lot of sense. This uncompromising position (by definition) ignores all intervening facts.

WRD may have begun as some well-meaning paternalistic gesture, but as with so many others, now only contributes to a dangerous build-up in Weapons of Radical Destruction.

The very people who started it (men), have now all become its targets. In our blind eagerness to defend the indefensible, we are beginning to neglect the real causes of, and the very significant levels of collateral damage. Our children.

This is where our collective responsibilities should lay. But no … many still firmly believe that women are responsible for all innocence, men for all evil.

Men are due for an awakening. Stop assigning such roles and half the problem would instantly disappear.