Even if it is true that young men are “not bothered” by female violence on dates (they can always walk away from these relationships), it becomes a lot more “bothersome” in marriage. The option of walking away from marriage, seems to have been taken away from men.

Furthermore, preconditioning men to suppress all feelings while both they and their children are subjected to violence over prolonged periods, eventually leaves everyone vulnerable to more extreme or fatal acts. Evidence shows both genders to be of equal capability and culpability (if not methods). What on earth made us conclude that relying on men’s self-control alone, is the only option?

Unless this has little to do with violence in the first place…

Female violence also becomes a lot more bothersome if the man has no recourse at all to stop it.

With a one-sided focus on violence against women all the time (honestly when is the focus on men?) it really is a zero sum game.

In common law a slap from a weaker person and a slap from a stronger person are still considered assault.

If I walked up to a biker and started pushing him around resulting in his breaking my nose I would be considered at fault for provoking him.

Consider the following scenario, that I first heard when I was nine years old and evidently has still not been resolved today:

"Woman breaks a vase over a man's head. Man turns around and hits woman in the face with a closed fist. She goes to hospital, he has minor cuts and bruises."

Is that wife battery? How was it preventable?

At the point that the vase is smashed on his head, what are his options? We are not dealing with men's violence "yet", so he can't call the police. If he does he will be potentially laughed at, looked on as the perpetrator, or just completely disregarded.

If he turns the other cheek, what happens if she does it again? Or again and again and again?

If he pushes her away or tries to restrain her she still has no incentive to actually stop and infact if he calls the police after that his chances of being seen as the perpetrator increase.

Now, he can end it by use of superior physical force, which is what he did.

Is he at fault?

Are laws that allow the woman to get away with VIOLENCE leading up to this and force the man in the corner going to prevent it from happening in the future?

The fact that 30+ years of feminist focus on domestic violence yielding precisely zero results has shown that is will make no difference. It is at least time to start asking when we are going to see some results from this "focus".

A brief on the partner violence aspects of the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study (which found that the most common forms of DV was mutual violence, followed by female only followed by male only) http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/170018.pdf made the following relevant comments

"Dunedin study male perpetrators of severe physical violence had extreme levels of polydrug abuse, antisocial personality disorder, dropping out of school, chronic unemployment, poor social support, and violence against victims outside the family. Among men who severely assaulted their partners, 72 percent had used two or more illicit drugs, 56 percent had left secondary school early without any formal certificates or qualifications, 51 percent had assaulted someone else in addition to their partner in the past year, and on average they had been unemployed for 20 months since leaving school. These extreme social and personal problems were not found for Dunedin study female perpetrators."

"Most men know that if they hit their partner, she is likely to be injured, the police may be called, and the police are now likely to act swiftly against male perpetrators. As a result, young men whose selfcontrol is compromised by enormous social stress, mental illness, or intoxication will be most likely to risk the consequences of hitting their partner. However, women know that they are unlikely to injure their partner, he is unlikely to call for help, and the police are unlikely to intervene. Thus, there is little to deter an angry young woman from hitting her partner. As such, women of all sorts may be apt to hit their partners, not just women whose judgment is clouded by stress, mental illness, or intoxication."

R0bert

The hypothetical.

Lets imagine that for the last 3 or 4 decades research into DV was conducted with the hypothesis that men were the victims and women were the perpetrators. This research would be called SEXIST, because it would only explore a part of the problem. Conducting research into violence against women was largely ignored, again this is SEXIST.

Lets imagine that over the last 3-4 decades ever new instances of violence against men are found by the research as more and more of human behaviour is examined under the microscope. Once acceptable behaviour becomes a new instance of DV.

Or a new interpretation is created.

A previous poster for shadow this latest newspaper article.
'Police fail battered women'
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/police-fail-battered-women/2006/12/16/1166162373997.html

In psychological terms there is the persecutor, victim and the rescuer.

some posters take on the role of the rescuer, rescuing damsals in distress which plays very nicely with the persecutor, victim.

"DOMESTIC violence experts say police are wrongly prosecuting battered women who fight back in self-defence.

And as happened in the US, laws will be changed to prescute (prosecute) more men regardless whether they were the initiator or the victim, after all ideology must be upheld, regardless of the evidence.

flood points to Frieberts bibilography as being used by MRA groups.

THe feminist DV clearing house also contains research which if exposed to critical analysis would not even gain a pass for a masters student on all other subjects except for women's studies and are about as creative as many of our politicans excuses.

Just a couple of comments-

Although it is refreshing to see Flood say that DV is not primarily caused by patriarchy, it appears to me that Flood's underlying assumptions still reflect an over-reliance on feminist theory. As has been immediately picked up by the other posters, I am amazed that he sees nothing disturbing about the fact that male victims of date violence commited by fmeales see no problem with it. As HB and Seeker have pointed out, men have no narrative lense through which to view this violence. When a woman receives so much as a shove, it is immediately perceived as DV, as a continuation of intimidation and domination by the stronger sex as a group. When a male receives a shove, there is no ideological construct through which to view this. So what. It's just a shove. It's not like she could really hurt me. From my own experience, as a male, you don't realise you're being dominated, (by violent or non-violent behaviour) until the situation gets unbearable, or until a long time later. Males should be taught the same thing as females about violence- it should not be tolerated. You don't have to put up with it.

Regarding violence committed at the end or after a relationship-

It seems to me that the argument that the CTS, (revised or original) does not take into account violence committed outside of a relationship is beside the point, if you're using it to discredit research which presents DV as gender neutral. Because if it omits violence committed by males after a relationship is over, it also omits violence committed by females. If the CTS has shown violence as gender neutral during the relationship, why do you assume that it is only the blokes who get violent at the end of a relationship?

Isn't it funny how the conversation has regenerated since Ronnie left...

Flood,

Thankyou for engaging our arguments and looking at the evidence.

Dozer,
An average male has about 50% more muscle mass than an average female of the same age, and a male’s skin is about 50% thicker (literally). If a male is given a bump or hit, then they may not even feel it, (just look at a game of Rugby League), but the same bump or hit may cause bruising or worse to a female.

What males should not be tolerating is gender prejudice, discrimination or demonization of a gender.

There is nothing in this article that is not non-gender prejudiced, does not discriminate, and does not demonize a gender, and unless there are complaints made, then such articles will simply continue.

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