Paul and HRS, psychological scars from abuse can be far reaching. They are applied by both men and women on each other and by parents on children. Neither gender has a particular monopoly on this.

To imply that physical abuse is somehow OK because 'these wounds heal' is a very scary statement. This is of course negating the psychological scar from being physically harmed by someone you trust and believe loves you.

To support Romany. Today, 16/08, in my hospital, there is a woman with severe pelvic bruising. She was admitted on the weekend. Is she pressing charges? No. She really believes that this man cares for her. He didn't mean it. In fact, she was upset today because he didn't visit. She's worried that he thinks she is angry. Was this the first time? No.

A few weeks ago in Intensive Care, a woman driven over -several times- with a car by her husband. Her pelvis is shattered. Is she willing to assist the police who want to charge her husband? No. She really believes that this man cares for her. He was at her bedside. Sobbing with remorse. Was this an isolated incident? The first time? No.

These two little stories are from one good district alone in a major city in Australia. None of the perpetrators are from some other 'foreign' cultural background, but are true blue Aussies. Nothing ethnic in sight.

There is no excuse, no credible argument really to soften, justify or minimise the fact that there are a significant number of women in Australia being seriously harmed by men.

I can give you lots, and lots of stories. For each week of the year if you want. Charges are rarely laid. Often only if the police can do so without the assistance of the woman

Sam said

‘… in practice...yes child usually appointed an independent solicitor...usually legal aid...whom more often acts for the mothers interest...so the father faces legal team of woman and child against him...this 2 v 1 allows family court to circumvent judicial process and give orders the mother wants...

Oh, pleeease .,.

I’ve had enough direct experience of DVO and Family Law specialists to know they are too professional to allow themselves to crumple in the face of a distressed damsel in the witness box. They are trained to deal with lies, damn lies and divorce rage. They are also experienced enough to be able to detect where the BS is coming from – and it usually ends up being the partner with the loudest self-pity.

If there is so much pro-female bias in the Family Law system, how come so many men renege on their child care payments and get clean away with it?

Ah jeez, here we go again.

Yep, cave men do indeed continue to walk the Earth, just like this Todd Harper excuse for a civilised human being, who continues to perpetuate man-hatred and masculinity-bashing just like the old twentieth century feminist-Marxist dinosaurs (read "Goddess" in lieu if you like).

And I thought we'd all moved on from there. Wow was I wrong!

So here we go, once more for the dummies, let's get some perspective here. In August 2006, the Australian Bureau of Statistics published their data resulting from their 2005 Personal Safety Survey -http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/A14E86B98435CC54CA2571C50074B17C/$File/4906055003_2005.pdf

Despite a sexist imbalance of participation - twice as many women were surveyed than men - the evidence of the truth began to emerge at last.

The survey revealed -

1. Men are more than twice as likely as women to be the victims of violence and are being physically or sexually assaulted or threatened at the rate of up to 2 incidents per second in Australia!

2. Women are not the victims of family (domestic) violence as often as the quoted 1 in 4, nor even 1 in 8, nor even 1 in 10, but actually 1 in 100!

3. Women are not being raped every 26 seconds, nor even every 90 seconds, as feminists frequently claim, but are in fact experiencing sexual assault - not necessarily rape - including both reported and ALL unreported incidents, at a rate of less than 1 per 5 minutes. This is a rate 91% less than that which feminists have previously claimed.

4. The ratio of female to male family (domestic) violence victims in a home is not 99:1, nor 9:1, nor even 5:1, but is actually closer to 2:1.

Continued...

Part 2

The statements above are all calculated from the ABS survey data without corruption. They are the figures. Go check them out.

So, why is Harper still gas-bagging about his corrupted data from 2004? Why is he not stating the facts from the ABS 2005 survey? Why does he not promote serious factual policies to eliminate violence towards men, when men are the most seriously affected group in Australia?

And of course, why has Goddess got her knickers in such a tight knot about others' reasonable comments? Is she a violent woman?

I could give you the answers to all these questions and more, but you probably wouldn't like them, so I won't. You'll have to go figure them out for yourselves.

Good luck folks.

Your point being Maximus? The level of violence supported by your stats is acceptable?

Don't worry about the violence against women. Only a quarter as bad as you think. Focus on the violence against men?

Well let's. There are many admissions to hospitals of men with physical injuries of any magnitude. Perpetrated by men on men.

Face up to it guys. You can make this into a gender bashing debate if you want, but perpetrating physical violence seems to be largely a male problem.

I've been thinking about the title and my own last post when I effectively provided support to the idea that "cave men" were violent thugs beating up on cave women.

How much do we really know about the behaviours of "cave men" or "neanderthals"? Were the title and the attempted slur against HRS really some kind of generalised racist slurs against technologicaly primitive peoples?

A socially acceptable version maybe of jibes at black fella's who obviously could never teach us modern types anything of value about how to live with each other or the land.

Could it be that the attitudes expressed are based on Hollywood portrayals of those peoples rather than on fact just as the perceptions about DV are based on a particular propaganda spin rather than a thoughtful understanding of DV and how it effects people?

R0bert