Television adds continue to show women assaulting male partners in various forms and treating it either as appropriate or humerous. A recent classic being the add from some months ago where the woman hit the man with a weapon because he had been silly enough to put a car part in the dishwasher.
=

The most revolting thing about this ad is that it's so totally unecessary.
It could have been so easily re scripted

While the car part was washing, the guy just buzzing down to the local supermarket for some more of the featured diswasher tabs. The wife gets annoyed cause he's run her out of tabs and he just hauls out another box.

But, heaven forbid, now thats' tabbo. Featuring men wiht reall brains and commonsense on TV ads.

The posters here are right when they say that men are more likely to be victims of violence than women, particularly teenage boys and young men. They are also more likely (not that female violence is unheard of, just not as common) to be the perpetrators.
I am the mother of daughters, but one of the things some of my friends who have sons have confided in me is their shock at the violent world their young sons entered almost as soon as they started school.
My daughters have been bullied ( girls can be right little bitches to one another) and I'm sure have been mean to others in their turn, but neither has ever experienced physical violence from either boy or girl. One daughter still has recurring dreams about seeing a male friend of hers ( when they were 14) be singled out and brutally beaten by a gang of much bigger boys who entirely ignored the girls, who ran and fetched help, saving their friend from more serious injury. Boys are much more vulnerable to violence from other boys.
It is the culture of violence - still more acceptable behaviour among men and boys, than among girls - that we must change. Anyone who is physically attacked is being horribly violated and we must stop turning a blind eye to it or regarding it as proof of masculinity. It should be just as unacceptable to hit another man as it is to hit a woman.(Or for a woman to hit a man, or woman). We should also stop hitting our children. The thugs who beat up my daughter's friend understood the code very well. Beating up girls is cowardly, beating up boys is brave. Rubbish, beating up anyone is stupid and completely unacceptable. Its not a bloody competition, bruises are bruises whatever the gender of the skin.

Ronnie, you write in apparent support of an article that shows a very one sided view of DV. You defend that one sidedness with the comment "And Cornflower you are also wrong to chastise feminist for supposedly not caring about the issue of women being violent to men. I’d say that they have their hands full looking after abused women."

The article you defend is based around the premise that australian men are not doing enough to stop violence against women.
"If men are serious about eliminating violence against women, they must act upon this conviction, whether in the criminal justice and family law systems, the workplace, the media or down the pub with the mates."

Most of the posters critical of the gender bias in coverage of DV are quite willing to speak against all relationship violence. It does not take any greater effort to speak against it all than just against one part.
It may be that with no government campaigns to back up, almost no funding to support male victims of DV that we have our hands full as well but we ensure that we don't dismiss the plight of women suffering DV.

Ronnie what we want from those feminists (and paternalists) pushing the myth of DV being overwhelmingly a male issue is some honesty and even handedness.

Dr Flood criticises mens groups for being political about the issue but is strangely quiet about the open use of terms like "Protecting Women and Children" by womens groups to oppose shared parenting regardless of what the stats on substantiated child abuse show.

He writes articles criticising the flaws in the methodology of those who's research shows a lack of generisation in DV but remains silent about the gaping holes in the type of stats used to support the myth that DV is a male issue.

The current author criticises men for not taking a lead role in a campaign that further reinforces lies about DV and is supported by those that think women are to busy to address female initiated DV.

R0bert

In the past men have dealt with men's violence effectively. Feminism has around about ZERO credibility when it claims a desire to deal with a "culture of violence", as it's results and philosophy to date have abjectly failed to deal with the issue and undermined working measures against it, eg:

Male Role Models: For example, FATHERS. A male role model can focus a boy's aggression in more positive ways, such as sports, or even intellectual pursuits.

[ Feminism's main aim appears to be elimination of the family unit and replacing it with single mothers. Of violent men in prison, the greatest common denominator is that their father was absent as they were growing up.

Read the Garbage Generation:

http://fisheaters.com/garbagegeneration.html

Re: violence in schools. Men don't run the schools, women do, and in a PC fashion. Go figure that out. Men tend to regulate conflict (and thus violence) in subordinates, that is if they aren't forced by PC management to enforce zero boundaries. ]

Men's honour : It is not honourable to beat up someone weaker than you, or use larger numbers to beat them up.

[ Feminists constantly attack masculinity as violent. Focusing on demonising masculinity rather than upholding the positive aspects in order to prevent violence is far less effective (and belies a hidden agenda). ]

No double standards ignoring violence in certain contexts: This means GENDER NEUTRALISING CAMPAIGNS LIKE WRD!! There is blatant cultural acceptance of violence against men TODAY. It is even considered humourous, eg:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vtx1X18sQbQ

Mateship and cameraderie: You don't beat up your mates, because you're mates with them.

[ Gender biased campaigns claiming that men have a collective responsibility encourages suspicion and competition between men. Feminists notoriously attack male bonding behaviours. ]

Someone cited Elvis Presley as "violent" in movies. He was a sex symbol. This is not isolated. The real irony, far from lost on high school boys, is that women appear more attracted to "violent" men. How does that prevent violence, instead of reward it?

Again, read the Garbage Generation. Feminism encourages this "culture of violence" with relentless one-sided attacks on "men".

Hands up all the men who have had a partner who refused to talk to them!

Welcome to strange distorted world of DV politics. In it's final report on family violence the feminist Vic Law Reform commission breeched, the human rights, the discrimination act and the principles of social justice.

According to the VLRC, prolonged silences is DV.

The DV industry is for ever expanding the definition looking for new instances, once violence meant physical abuse, now it covers emotional, psychological, financial and sex.

In fact the definition of DV has been expanded so far that almost all types of behaviour can be regarded as DV.

What bloke out there has not had a woman manipulate them into doing something?

Manipulation is DV.

It is interesting when these types of debates go on it degenerates down too who hits who and most often and to who does the most damage.

If withholding praise and compilments is DV , then so is withholding sex.

Erin Pizzey in her discussion paper on violent women, label these types of women as family terrorists. Erin asks "Whose mood sets the tone?"

If a man who says 'You'll never see the children' an abuser then it is no different from the woman does not comply with court orders and deny the children access and contact with the father?

Research into the bullying behaviours of school girls identified telling bad and false stories as bullying. Spreading rumors, gossiping and betraying confidences as well. Guess what women do these things very well

Provocation is no defense unless you are a woman who murders the husband.

I know it was done with tongue in cheek, but a comment from a writer on this issue in another forum suggested that the logic of the WRC indicates the need for a "Little Ribbon Day". This would be to attempt to reduce the amount of violence against children (which unlike violence against women, is increasing).

For "Little Ribbon Day" women would be encouraged to buy a blue/pink striped ribbon. They would be told:
"Wearing a candy ribbon is not a badge of purity or perfection. It does not mean that this woman has never been violent in the past. It does not mean that this woman has all the answers. It simply means that this woman now believes that violence towards children is unacceptable".

For those doubters who may question the reality of women (mostly biological mothers)as majority perpetraors of violence against children, check out the most recent data from the US Department of Health & Human Services at:

Abuse/neglect perpetrators(or “maltreatment” in American speak):
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/figure3_6.htm

Perpetrators of child fatalities
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/figure4_2.htm

I would give Australian data, but the gender of perpetrators of child abuse in Australia has been largely hidden since 1996, when it was found that between 68-80% of perpetrators of child abuse were women (according to the AIFS). The AIFS now concentrates on arguing that this is due to "contextual factors", such as substance abuse, and, in any event they note, the mother spends more time with the children! (And this excuses the behaviour? If so, perhaps White Ribbon could note that husbands are excused from abusing their wives because they spend more time with them!).