HRS, I totally agree with you regarding this article, my comments were in regard to what I thought you were saying in your post about WRD itself.

I'm unhappy about WRD because I think the massive focus on genderising discussion about DV perpetuates DV and provides a significant number of victims with no outs. If WRD was conducted in a climate where there was support for male victims of DV then I'd not have an issue.

The article is a different issue.

Ronnie, I'm trying to get my head around what you actually think on this issue. Have we got bogged down in rebutting what we think the other is saying rather than what is being said?
My understanding is that
- you believe that almost all DV is committed by men against women and that you may hold men responsible for the times when men are hit by women.
- you think that men have some kind of collective responsibility for this and that we all somehow share in the guilt.
- I don't know what you think about the studies that show DV is not significantly genderised, not sure if you've commented on those.
- I have the impression that you think that the issues facing what male victims of DV exist are too small to put effort into and that any attention paid to them takes away from the much more needy female victims.
- You seem to think I loose credibility if I don't pick up on every point that I should disagree with and then comment on it.

Am I misunderstanding you on any of these points?

For the record I'm trying to stay out of the name calling aspect of the debate, I don't like it (but sometimes find myself with leftover mud on my hands).

R0bert

A vivacious, curvy young spoon dances freely to the music in the TV commercial. She is soon joined by a handsome young pint-sized bucket of ice-cream, who, tipping his lid, joins her in dance. Before she knows it, she is surrounded by sweet suitors, each offering a unique flavour. Ecstatic, the highly prized spoon leaps into the air, and upon landing, penetrates the soft, moist contents of the nearest dessert.

Great. Now we even use ice-cream ads to deconstruct masculinity…

Try this link for the ABS PSS. Other one is acting up.

http://www.aifs.gov.au/acssa/statistics.html#npss

“Ronnie,”

Yes, it is all about you.

The reference to the man who killed himself is an indictment on a system which does not support male victims of DV, not a suggestion that you, personally, are somehow responsible for the tragedy. HB did not accuse you of being whipped- instead he noted that men and women should take equal responsibility for their actions, rather than males letting women dominate relationships. I have not called you a bully- I showed that you have accused others of “bullying behaviour.” (The poster who called you a retard was indeed insulting, but it was an indication of his exasperation at your continual refusal or inability to engage our arguments directly.)

JamesH was not suggesting that your mother chastised you for masturbating. Instead, by comparing your tactics to abusive mothers, he shows that he understands what I was getting at. It is not your attachment to feminist theory that caused me to question your gender.

(Some examples of this attachment include-

- Your assertion that patriarchy is the cause of DV

- You appear to imbue the terms “gender neutral” and “gender bias” with a different meaning to us. In arguing that DV affects both genders equally, we argue that DV is a gender neutral issue, and WRD, in focusing on DV against females, is gender biased. In contrast, you appear to clamp down on any language which makes any differentiation between the genders as being gender biased. Do you believe that gender is merely a social construct? Surely an article which

discusses the differences between the way males and females argue, and indeed, think, must be entitled “the last time I hit a woman” for that very reason.)

Instead, it is that your tactics appear so similar to those employed by females, and, (this is not to suggest that you are abusive in your relationships,) particularly to abusive females. Your latest response, in which you twisted what we have said into an attack upon you personally, is yet another example of an emotional, illogical response. If you are indeed a man, I would suggest that you have been so comprehensively socialised by feminist ideology that you have come to think, write, and argue in a “feminised” manner.

(It’s important to point out here that I think women are awesome. However, JamesH’s link highlighted a perennial problem.)

A few comments on The Patriarchy as the supposed source of DV:

Structural inequalities existed in the past, (and some still survive,) and feminism has been instrumental in remedying these problems. However, the underlying assumption that discrimination is the product of The Patriarchy leads to a simplistic approach. Thus when DV against women continues unabated, the conclusion must be that The Patriarchy is as strong as ever and continues to violently oppress the female class, rather than seeking a more effective approach.

The study below demonstrates a number of findings:

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID41E2.pdf

DV rates against females are lower in countries which have generally better attitudes and laws regarding gender equality.

Rates of DV against both genders are relatively even in these countries.

People (male or female) who exhibit more controlling tendencies in their personality are more likely to use violence.

Thus, challenging misogynistic laws and attitudes to women is instrumental to reducing DV against women. However, as power relations between the genders in a society become more equal, and as studies show that violence in a relationship is a reflection of power imbalance and a controlling personality, (and alcohol and drug abuse, alienation, etc,) it becomes more and more important to approach the issue of DV as a human issue rather than one of gender.

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.

JamesH sent me to a sexist anti-feminist religious site. In conjunction with his other attitudes it suggests a reactionary approach.

RE: films. I don’t recall saying that those attitudes are generally around today. In today’s films they are much worse and more open. Leigh’s attitude to women is reminiscent though.

HRS Re: “If women 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.” You could say the same about certain men’s groups.

No I don’t want to marginalise and demonise males. I want you to stop marginalising and demonising yourselves.

Ronnie peters,
So you are not attempting to marginalise and demonise males, but you want to join the WRD?

Do you want men to chop off their arms and throw themselves under a bus also, or is this something you don’t want to talk about, at present.

Could you please point out just one example where the several authors of this article have carried out the following: -

Attempted to not marginalise and demonise the male gender.
Attempted to write a balanced and non-gender prejudiced article.
Attempted to not mislead the public.

At present I cannot find even one example.

Retarded-bulldyke-posing-as-a-man wrote:

"I want you to stop marginalising and demonising yourselves."

There is simply no way that you can justify this in the slightest. It is by far the most ridiculous thing said in this entire discussion. This is even worse than that "women can't tell men being violent on television are violent" thing.

I asked how we were supposed to be demonising ourselves before and you said "violent men demonise themselves", so once again:

Are you calling us all violent and blatantly perpetuating a stereotype specifically designed to stir up hate, because that's the only way you can reconcile this statement with *us* demonising men, or are you just a bag lady with alzheimers?

And of course, when we say that studies show there are just as many male victims of domestic violence as women, and that there needs to be focus on male victims and you say:

(1) Any data that doesn't show men are responsible for 99 to 1 instances of domestic violence, is "Internet propaganda", which dismisses the male victims included in:

153 empirical studies and 43 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

And the latest Australian Personal Safety survey to name only some academic and governmental studies which say the same.

(2) The focus should be on female victims (which IS SYNONYMOUS WITH MARGINALISING MALE VICTIMS YOU TWIT)

(3) A paper that says that even female violence towards men is in a context of "patriarchal oppression", so should be disregarded, is reasonable and the correct way forward.

You are actually helping male victims and we are brushing them aside.

Yes. That makes perfect sense. My "retarded" comment is not an insult, it is a provably accurate description.

Seems to me that the only people that really support these campaigns are either:

1. Nazi feminist man haters.
2. People who logic completely eludes to the point of belonging in a mental institution.
3. Both.