Ronnie, just in case you are still following this.

I've just had a re-read back through some of the posts and came across one of yours which I seem to have missed. Your comments seem at odds with what I've understood from your other posts on the topic.

One key issue seems to be tied up in "I am not hassling you for not supporting feminists; so don’t attack me for not supporting your endeavour. "

Actually I do support feminists, just not the particular variety that wants to gain by pushing men under or expect different standards for themselves to those applied to men.

If you have a look at the title of the article "Women see red on White Ribbon Day" and the core topic of the article which you claim to support it is an attack on men for not doing enough to support WRD. If you are not hassling me for not supporting it the author is doing so.

For my part you have not been attacked for supporting WRD bu for apparent support for the trrust of the article and the attacks you have made on those of us who do not support WRD in the genderised form it now takes.

--

Michael, sorry to hear about your back. I too appreciate that you have begun to engage in discussion. Please keep the involvement going, hopefully it is valuable to all.

R0bert

Men need to develop the necessary language to articulate their predicament and establish effective campaigns against female violence. This language currently reflects the “not bothered” male attitudes to undesirable female behaviour. Until we change this, the one sided view of violence will remain.

Violence is violence. What have muscle mass and skin thickness have to do with WRD and all-male responsibility for violence, other then help perpetuate the prejudice and discrimination HRS claims to be against. Guess none of us are immune to conditioning received through the language of feminism.

More on the "evidence shows men overreport female violence and women underreport male violence" claim:

http://jiv.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/12/1263

Assessment of the Reliability of the Conflict Tactics Scales
A Meta-Analytic Review
JOHN ARCHER

"This article reports meta-analyses of self-agreement and partners' agreement for physical aggression in relationships, measured by the Conflict Tactics Scales. Evidence from concordance rates was inconclusive, and the limited correlational data indicated high interpartner agreement. Differences between self-reports and partners' reports for men and women were analyzed to address the following hypotheses: Men but not women underreport their own aggression, both sexes underreport their own aggression, and men underreport their victimization. In 18 studies of couples, mean weighted effect sizes showed higher ratings of aggression from partners than from self-reports for both men and women. In 43 studies of unmatched men and women, the mean differences were smaller than for couples but were greater for men than for women. Overall, this evidence indicated systematic underreporting in self-reports by both sexes (Hypothesis 2), which was greater for men among the larger number of studies in which the men and the women did not come from matched couples (Hypothesis 1)."

That news article above and the idea that women are being arrested for violence likely in "self defence" is more myth peddling:

Richard Gelles, Ph.D, "The Hidden Side of Domestic Violence; Male Victims," 1999:

"It has often been claimed that the reason CTS studies have found as many women as men to be physically aggressive is because women are defending themselves against attack. A number of studies have addressed this issue and found that when asked, more women than men report initiating the attack."

http://www.co.san-bernardino.ca.us/sheriff/dvra/dom_viol_facts_main.htm

FACT: A survey 0f 1,000 women, perhaps the largest survey of its kind, found that 20% had initiated violence. The most common reasons for women initiating domestic violence were: "My partner wasn't sensitive to my needs," (46%), "I wished to gain my partner's attention," (44%) and "My partner was not listening to me" (43%). "My partner was being verbally abusive to me" (38%) was a distant fourth.

etc. etc.

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

Subheading: THE SELF-DEFENSE MYTH

For more information.

Happy Bullet, if you've not seen it you might also be interested in the comments from the Dunedin study I referenced recently.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/170018.pdf

"Perpetrators’ reports of their own abuse behaviors were compared with their partners’ reports of victimization to determine if couple members concurred about the perpetrator’s behaviors. Couples’ responses to the interview showed that agreement about whether specific abusive behaviors had happened was poor, as has been suggested by previous research. Study members and their partners did not agree about whether, for example, one of them had tried to strangle the other. However, agreement improved dramatically when the individual items were summed into scales that counted the variety of different abuse behaviors performed in the past year. Although members of a couple may not recall exactly the same acts, they can agree on whether or not abuse took place and on the extent of the abuse.

Agreement was even stronger when random measurement errors were removed statistically.6 This agreement reveals that disagreement between partners is due to random forgetfulness; neither partner was deliberately misrepresenting the facts in an attempt to mislead the interviewer. The statistical correlations indicate that about 70–80 percent of one partner’s report agreed with the other partner’s report. Contrary to expectations, agreement between partners did not vary with the perpetrator’s gender or with the type of abusive behavior."

R0bert

Seeker,
I think there are many women who realise that if they carry out physical violence on a male, then they are very likely to come out of it with an injury themselves, so they are more likely to carry out other forms of violence, which are more subtle but no less damaging.

Abducting the children from the father is a very common form of violence being carried out on fathers right throughout Australia, and of course that form of violence being carried out on men is much more sole destroying than a slap on the face.

There are people in feminism who are highly gender prejudiced, but saying to them that they shouldn’t be gender prejudiced is like saying to a member of the KKK that they shouldn’t be racially prejudiced. Of course it makes no difference to them

So the next step is to make complaints to the organisations that harbour them.

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

Eeva Sodhi of Nojustice.info before she bacame ill, had articles on how how deceptive research was conducted.

In one research paper she showed how rather than researchers asking men questions about themselves, the researchers asked women about men and the conclusions of the paper was that men were happy with the current custody arrangements.

So rather than asking men about their attitudes or feelings, researchers asked women instead.

It is interesting this research about the levels of self reported violence and the conclusions reached.

"Gender differences in patterns of relationship violence in Alberta" asked men and women the same questions and found that women reported a higher incidence of initiating violence. Of course this does not fit with feminist paradigm.

So the next step to discount such findings is to produce a research paper which makes the level of reported violence unreliable, thereby reinforcing feminist paradigm. Unreliability maybe because people veiw different types of acts as violence and at times memory can be unreliable as well. It is possible to exaggerate or to minimize possible acts of violence.

Exposing female violence can create enormous emotional conflict within individuals and groups who ascribe the gendered belief of 'patriarchy' and 'power and privilege' in DV. The conflict can be so great that the only way the individual or groups can deal with it, is to deny it as strongly as possible otherwise to accept it as fact would mean that they would have to examine and come to terms with their own behaviour attitudes and beliefs.

Somewhat similar to the type of reaction a person has, when they are told they are hallucinating and what they are seeing is not actualy there.