If feminists have hijacked white ribbon day, then it is not a men's movement any more is it?

I used to volunteer at Amnesty International and was in full support of WRD, as a part of it's Stop Violence Against Women campaign. I endured speakers from organisations like the Women's Council for Domestic and Family Violence Services, using the fact that the 'focus' was on violence against women to villify and attack men, and blame domestic violence on men entirely. A pattern which was repeated in this article. That was until I found out the truth.

The fact is, since the 1980s, studies on domestic violence have consistently found that it is a two-sided affair.

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

SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 196 scholarly investigations: 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. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 177,100.

http://www.mediaradar.org/

Not to mention the recently released Australian Personal Safety Survey released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, which was completely ignored by feminist organisations, as the wish to limit the "focus" of domestic violence issues.

etc. etc.

Casting it as a one-sided affair will place responsibility and shame on one side and alleviate the other side of any responsibility for their actions. This can only ever be seen as a hateful attack on the former side and furthermore compounds rather than alleviates the problem.

Perusing the sites affiliated with white ribbon day you can find copious evidence of the true motivations for their one-sidedness. Apparently, the cause of domestic violence, when enough of the 'focus' has been on women in order to cover up male victims, is "patriarchy" and "discrimination against women". This would completely ignore the actual causes.

Simply put organisations that support white ribbon day are doing so for political gain and a motivation of justifying a marginalisation of men in more general areas.

Thanks for the advice about not correcting my elders Leigh. But I'll continue to correct anybody I encounter who's wrong, regardless of their age. I'm very non-discriminatory that way. :)

No, I can't "match" your achievement of having lived for many years and spawned many progeny. Gosh I'm impressed though. Then again, I have fewer lines on my face and more hair than you. Why don't we go outside and have a pissing contest and then we'll know who's right?

And I did make a personal comment on the subject at hand - I believe the focus should be on "violence from men", not "violence against women".

It's a fact that men are most commonly the cause as well as the victims of violence. Most of the people locked up for assault are men, and most of the people hospitalised for assault are men. That is a true statement that can be verified by consulting any public records of gaols or hospitals, and it has nothing to do with my age or experience.

Attacking an argument because of the age of the messenger is a new low for you Leigh, you can do much better than that.

And I've yet to meet a woman, even my wife, who's as provocative, irritating or trouble-making as most of the men who regularly post to this forum, myself included.

Have a nice day.

Happy Bullet, thanks for the links. I've not worked through much from those links yet but have found an article referenced from one by Richard Gelles very interesting. I'd read claims elsewhere that Gelles and his colleague's had rejected the findings of their earlier research, this article makes it clear that is not the case.

A number of sections stand out but space won't allow the reproduction of much so I'll grab one.

http://www.ncfmla.org/gelles.html

"My colleague Murray Straus has found that every study among more than 30 describing some type of sample that is not self-selective (an example of self-selected samples are samples of women in battered woman shelters or women responding to advertisements recruiting research subjects; non-select selective samples are community samples, samples of college students, or representative samples) has found a rate of assault by women on male partners that is about the same as the rate by men on female partners. The only exception to this is the U.S. Justice Department’s Uniform Crime Statistics, the National Survey of Crime Victims, and the U.S. Department of Justice National Survey of Violence against Women."

R0bert

Oh what a pointless moan.

What I dislike is the stereotyping of men by these women who, if we were to believe them, which I for one do not, are the only gender which does a days work, us boys being out there playing with our mates and leaving all the chores to the girls.

Wake up tootsies, this fella can and does look after himself. I do not need a woman to make me complete, although I enjoy the company of women immensely.

But "wants" and "needs" are different things and mine is purely a "want".

Oh and on the matter of violence, more violence has been perpetrated against me by both of my ex wives than has ever been dispensed by me.

Although some women I am sure bring violence unto themselves, a consequence of a co-dependent disorder. Hanging around with low life drunk and abusive blokes who will not change but the dumb gals just don't get it.

So a word on that, do not expect anyone to change. Who you meet on a first date is the best that person will be and you will not change him (or her for that matter) to what you really want them to be and quite honestly, do not have the right to try to make them change.

When people of both genders realise that individuals are individuals and we should glory in their individuality and not attempt change them or homogenise them, then the happier we will be, the better partners we will make and the better and more successful relationships we will have.

But what do I know - I am only a bloke - but I am first amd foremost an individual bloke!

Did the new ads make it to TV on saturday? I only watched the cricket for a few hours on sat and didn't see a single WRD ad. I was aware of them through a 7:30 report or lateline article.

The older ads "Violence against women - Australia says no" have made a comeback.

There is a particular line in this article that sticks in my craw:

" but they do nothing to send a message to men about their collective responsibility for male violence, whether committed by them or not."

ah: "collective responsibility"?

This statement simply clumps all men of every kind as a 'collective', which implies a joint enterprise of violence against women and children by men.

Sorry, I thought that we live in a society comprising individuals, not collectives.