Benjamin, "It never ceases to amaze me how these messages are always aimed at the mainstream, white culture."

I guess that you have never heard discussions regarding the rates of DV and child abuse amongst the indiginous community then.

I've seen coverage of those issues in the media and mention of the overrepresentation of indigenous kids on child abuse/protection web sites. I doubt that many indiginous communities classify as mainstream, white culture.

My recollection is that some of the individuals depicted in the "Violence against men - who gives a s#$t" campaign were of non-anglo appearance but am not certain of that.

I think that the politicisation of DV and child abuse has played a role on how the issues are addressed, the issues have been misrepresented to create a perception that DV and child abuse are a male problem and not effected by other factors. Part of that process may be that issues relating to specific sections of the community are not addressed.

R0bert

Leigh says: "And what about the numbers of men who have had their faces slapped on the silver screen with, of course, no retaliation from the victim of female violence? Not the done thing, old boy. Perhaps if they were given one back, they might have realised the consequences of their own violence."

Leigh you didn't notice that after the woman slaps the male which is usually in response to some provocation or lewd suggestion- the male would grab the woman and forcefully kiss her on the mouth? This is symbolic of rape. Elvis and John Wayne movies are good examples.

Col Rouge. Isn't that French for red collar or red neck?

Benjamin you are free to protest red-neck behaviour. You just did. I disagree with a lot of what you say, but you do say it well. I get the feeling though that it is reworded second hand info. Are you a member or leader of some group?

It was just a mere century ago that the rule of thumb still applied. You could legally beat your wife so long as the switch wasn't thicker than a males thumb (I only just saw this in a movie - checked it out and it is indeed the case - so much for well-rounded education).

The British were even multicultural back then but only because people riled against the dominant cultural norms like the rule of thumb. The women and men who refused to accept this misogynistic cultural more were seen as an aberration or even counter-cultural. Thus multicultural societies tend to reject oppressive “redneck” behaviours and ultimately nurture goodwill to others.

Leigh see "Boondock Saints" if you want to see a man respond to a woman's slap in a movie. Two pennies for rapists and their supporters?

Or Leigh just go to the violent porno movie sites in which women are raped, bashed for the pleasure of anonymous male onlookers. That should clear up your delusion. Why isn’t degrading stuff discussed more as I think the portrayal of women in this stuff is a major cause of violence against women?

Ronnie Peters wrote:

<i>It was just a mere century ago that the rule of thumb still applied. You could legally beat your wife so long as the switch wasn't thicker than a males thumb (I only just saw this in a movie - checked it out and it is indeed the case - so much for well-rounded education).</i>

Ronnie, this is a myth. I expect that you "checked it out" at a feminist site. In fact, the term "rule of thumb" derives from an old-fashioned method of measurement for carpenters. There has never been found any reference to such a rule within English common law. The opposite is true: British law has explicitly prohibited wife-beating since at least the 1700s.

As for the general topic, it ought to be remembered that at least 25% of physical assaults on women are committed by other women (see ABS Women's Safety Survey 1996 and Personal Safety Survey 2005).

It is therefore a distortion to always focus on men as the perpetrators of violence against women.

Hamlet “Collective Responsibility”
You are right in such pandering to populist beliefs is the sort of trash values which would catch in anyones craw.

Collective responsibility is a nonsense, the sort of slogan which should have gone out with tribal markings.

Why is it that these sorts of feministic articles go on about the male gender with such low bigotry. Do they not consider that it would be classed offensive if they made such claims based on race or religion,

eg. “Arabs are all terrorists” or
“The Jews are collectively responsible for the death of Christ”

neither statement do I believe and I use them only to illustrate the sort of stupid bigotry which dares suggest -

That any gender has a collective responsibility for anything.

Anyone who wants to claim I share a “collective responsibility” for the violent stupidity of other men and the willingness of too many women to accept or collaborate in it through their own co-dependent behaviour, can try to make whatever claim they can muster but I would deny such “collective responsibility”.

Same way as anyone admits to some “collective responsibility” for my personal actions is a moron.

I keep coming back to one of the predominant basis of my personal values set,

we are all individuals, responsible for our own actions, not the actions of our parents or cousins or spouses. We might, in some instances be reasonably considered responsible for the actions of our children (if they are below age of maturity) but that is it.

Collective responsibility is being used purely as a knee-jerk scapegoat reaction by the feeble minded in an attempt to rationalize actions which they just cannot grasp but it should have no place is the reasoning of responsible individuals.

Ronnie peters “Col Rouge. Isn't that French for ... red neck?”

Yes Ronnie, I did realise that, it is merely my sense of humour at work (if one decides to use a nom-de-plume, best choose something snappy).

ronnie, "Leigh you didn't notice that after the woman slaps the male which is usually in response to some provocation or lewd suggestion" - leaving aside the bit about the forced kiss for the moment are you suggesting that a physical assault can be justified on the basis of some provocation or a lewd comment?

That does seem to be a fairly common theme from those who support female violence, that when a man strikes a woman it is never her fault but when a woman strikes a man it can be justified because she did not approve of his behaviour.

In regard to the forced kiss issue some of those old movies do seem to push the idea that no means yes. Sad and something which both men and women need to move past. Yes and No should always mean exactly that.

I've seen plenty of more recent work (mostly small screen) where the assault happens but it is not followed by any kind of forced kiss/rape/embrace etc. One TV ad even had the male saying something like "fair enough" after being hit with a weapon by the woman.

Few provocations and no lewd comment are ever justification for physically assaulting another human being, quite simple really.

R0bert

Many studies have found that large proportions, in some populations even the bulk of women, think that physically assaulting men is acceptable behaviour.

In one study one of the main reasons women cited for using physical violence was because 'men have been conditioned not to retaliate'.

Apparently women can use DV with impunity because the Public Awareness Campaigns and police harassment have trained men to not even try to protect themselves.