I thought I was done with this thread but, Romany wants to pull me back in with assumptions and dictate to what I have done.

Romany,"I pointed out to Aqvarius that if you typed Male Sexual Assault into Google 85 pages worth of sites came up:- he did not care to follow any of them up, but still maintains the methodology is flawed and corrupted by feminists."

None of this is true. It's an outright lie and needs immediate apology.
Nowhere in this thread have I said these thing and please let me say whether or not I followed up or did not. Such unmitigated arrogance.

Your defense of feminism is admirable but, is bordering on unthinkingly defensive. Feminism is all about a gender war. Nothing but. Now you want to blame that on men too. Take issue with words like girls, women, feminist? What? Only women or feminist can utter such lofty images?
You want the feminist opinion to go unchallenged but, not admit to being a feminist or a supporter of feminism ideals, or state whether or not your even female, and still want it to be accepted that you have no agenda. Right. I'd believe you if your own words didn't belie your assertions.

It's probably drifting off topic but I found a Family Court document that might be of interest to those involved in the most recent posts

http://www.familycourt.gov.au/presence/resources/file/eb000240ff79dc9/iijca2.pdf

It's a submission to the inquiry into joint custody run several years ago.

Figure 3, page 9 gives a chart of residence outcomes. As a single dad who has been through the mill (FMC rather than FC) I'd have to say that the difference in outcomes between consent orders and the courts is an indicator of just how bad things are when you deal with RA and friends rather than an endorsement of the courts lack of bias.

Actual parenting arrangements in place before and after seperation and the decisions which lead to a contested custody seem to have little real role in the process. Maternal bias is loud and clear but I tend to think Paternalists play as big a role as Feminists in that.

R0bert

Oh! dear a pesky conspiracy theory.

I suppose, only feminists are allowed to have conspiracy theories, now let me see;

1) marriage was a patiarchial constuct to keep women oppressed.

2) domestic violence is about power and control

3) backlash is about returning to the patriachial model

4) the glass ceiling

5) women must be on guard to protect hard won gains

6) women are still oppressed

I think I could come up with a few more.

Oh then there's the beauty myth.

I think it was Babette Francis who wrote an interesting piece on Gillard who if Labor wins the next election and she is deputy leader will be the most powerful woman in politics, and Gillards feminist credentials are impeccable to a feminist.

Interestingly Andrew Bolt wrote a piece "Law wears a skirt"

Eeva Sodhi (Canada) wrote a piece on activist justices (Judges)
http://www.fathersforlife.org/Sodhi/remarks_McLachlin1.htm

"Both McLachlin and L'Heureux-Dubé are self-confessed feminists. In a just society no law can be applied according to the personal agenda or perception of a judge, especially if that judge openly embraces such radical ideology as feminism. We could hardly tolerate a member of the Aryan Nation to deliver a verdict concerning racial tolerance.

If our judges and law enforcement agencies are, indeed, trained by an organization which bases its dogma on partial truths and outright lies, as shown..., then they can be seen to be participants in the effort to subvert justice."

Nah! No conspiracy theory here.

Aqvarius. I should have clarified that the sexual assault convo was on another ongoing thread. I was at fault for not having pointed that out and apologise.

Personal details are irrelevant. The point I unendingly put forward is that discussion and debate revolve around objectivity. The introduction of subjectivity is what leads to personal attacks and criticism, unforgivable rudeness.

To have an objective view of anything is to be in possession of facts - not opinions - from both sides of a debate. From the balancing and weighing of facts one then forms and states opinions.

The point that one person has had x number of experiences which point one way while another has had as many that point another way is immaterial.

This article is about:
a) many people not knowing what contemporary feminism is and
b) many people utilising the terms "feminist" or "misogynist" when in fact they are engaging in gender wars and
c)Contemporary feminism in Australia is NOT about gender wars.
Just as contemporary punitive measures here in Australia are NOT about capital punishment. Both these things were once true. Neither are today.

I pointed to the fact that some posters no longer pretend they are arguing about feminists - they've started addressing women in general.They are engaging in gender-bashing.

As many posters who argue the most bitterly are those who have elsewhere admitted to having had terrible personal experiences it is both reasonable and understandable to assume that they are projecting.

However, personal experiences don't tell you what feminism is about. That's what the article is saying. That's what I have said over and over. That's what many other posters keep saying too.

Once more I say: some PEOPLE are good, some PEOPLE are bad. BAD things have been done in the name of feminism. BAD things have been done in the name misogyny.

NOW lets move on. No-one will ever be declared the winner in a mudslinging competition.

I don't think subjective stories are unhelpful, they add a richness to a debate and help form opinions which is what this forum is all about. However, it is not helpful to allow subjective experiences to colour all of a person's opinion.

I am interested in your statement JamesH that says that the graduates from women's studies in the 70s and 80s are now in positions of power in the government. By my calculation that means that they have been in the service for 20-30 years and should be looking at retirement soon. Who or what is going to take their place I wonder? Are our young men in training to fight for the rights of men in family law and domestic violence policy as apparently the young women of decades ago were trained to fight for the rights of women. Again, I ask what are men doing about the anomalies in family law and domestic violence? Are students researching how these laws affect men? If they are, why isn't the media picking up on it or have they been hijacked by feminism as well?

"THE Premier's plan to "name and shame" the perpetrators of domestic violence has run into immediate opposition - not from men, but women."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/women-wary-on-shaming-wife-beaters/2007/02/18/1171733612755.html

During the Victorian Law Commission's inquiry into domestic violence I submitted areound 30 separated papers which included research papers, as well as opinion and discussion articles.

Not a single one of the papers I submitted were listed in the bio. However the papers submitted by Michael Flood were.

The final paper read predictably like a typical feminist DV paper, perhaps constructed for a uni assignment.

The basic assumption of the paper was that men were the perpetrators and women were the victim.