This is the bigger picture.

The male brain is different to the female brain and the law has a huge job trying to work around that reality.

Domestic Violence and Family law as it relates to property are two separate matters.

Frank's first mistake was to use violence against Sri no matter how lazy and conniving she may be.

His second mistake was to order her out of the house when they have a child. The rights of the child to enjoy a violence free environment and a home take precedence over Frank's needs.

Frank's ability to convince a Family Court of the contributions each has made to the acquisition of joint property and the issue of custody of their child will determine what share of the property he will retain.

Frank should learn that violence does not pay

I was so pleased when I read the summary comments but the article seemed to be something different.

It talked about a situation where the physical violence was initiated by the male. From what I've heard there are enough situations around where men who have not initiated abuse suffered a similar fate.

It did not address one of the biggest consequences of misuse of DV laws - isolating a father from his children to establish a pattern of care. It reinforced a stereotype that all men care about is the money.

At no stage stage did the article demonstrate that a woman who had made similar choices would not be in the same situation.

The article talked about a situation where one party appears to have deliberately set out to create a situation, I suspect that in most cases it's more about good initial intentions but when things go bad one party finds themselves with some tools not available to the other party to gain the children, revenge, assets and an income stream.

The summary suggests that we need a radical rework of DV laws but does not give any suggestion regarding how we might do that to both protect against abusive partners and to stop DV laws being misused by the unscrupulous.

Roger suggests that in regard to violence against men - Australia says nothing. Almost true but what Australia mostly says is "she's probably smaller than you so is unlikely to hurt you. Get over it."
Possible an even worse message.

R0bert

I do not agree with violence in any form. But, I would suggest that this scenario is repeated many times over, I personally know of two such situations where the female from overseas has come into Australia got what she wanted, and taken the male to the cleaners. The males have been left with almost nothing and in both cases the female has been able to stay in the marital property.

I would suggest to all males "beware".

It could be argued that a man could apply the same laws to a woman who carries out “domestic violence” on the man.

But what would be the outcome.

A man phones the police and reports the domestic violence from the woman. The man is likely to get divorced, after which he is likely to lose nearly all contact with his children and only be allowed to see his children every second weekend. He will likely lose the house and have nowhere to live. He will also have to pay the woman over half of his assets, and also have to pay the woman a monthly sum (called child support) without any say in how the money is spent.

A woman phones the police and reports the domestic violence from the man. The man is likely to get divorced, after which he is likely to lose nearly all contact with his children and only be allowed to see his children every second weekend. He will likely lose the house and have nowhere to live. He will also have to pay the woman over half of his assets, and also have to pay the woman a monthly sum (called child support) without any say in how the money is spent.

Same outcome no matter who calls the police.

Modern feminism has nothing to do with equality.

Modern feminism is about power, money and the abduction of children from their fathers.

Perhaps Frank should have got to know this woman before marrying her and perhaps she should have done the same. Maybe Frank was looking for the stereo typical submissive Asian wife and perhaps she was looking for the stereotypical Weston husband sugar daddy. Maybe they both lied to each other. I find it hard to believe that Frank is as nice as this article portrays as I find it hard to believe that a marriage breakdown is all one person’s fault. If Frank did not want to have a child with this woman he should either refrained from having had sex with her, had a vasectomy or at the very least worn a condom. Simple. People like Frank should take some personal responsibility and blaming every-body else. Don’t want a violence order – don’t be violent. Assault is assault – whether inflicted by a person known to victim or a complete stranger. It is just so sad that a child has been conceived in such an obviously troubled relationship. Perhaps Frank should get some counselling for his problems and stop blaming them on the laws that protect all of us.

You can't generalise like this article does. One unknown guy called Frank does not represent the majority of male female violence situations. It's usually the male who uses violence and mostly they get away with it as women want to keep their family together. Meaning look after the kids financially.

As it happens I lost my home and kids because of a marriage breakup but it wasn't violence. It was my ex's decision and she certainly used every trick in the book to rip me off.

But I did not seek revenge etc as it would have hurt my kids. I left them in their home with their mother simply because she had taken them and legally I couldn't win. I still see those kids so I kept contact and see them as often as they and I can arrange.

If Frank's story is exactly right then Frank is the dummy. Marrying poor Asian women is a fool's paradise. There are exceptions but mainly Asian women marry Westerners for one reason only. Money. And it is the male ego which makes them ignore what is obvious to all.

Let me be Frank. I'd just walk away and wait for the child to ask to see me while ensuring the child know I love them.

Anyone who marries a partner they don't really know is a fool. Either sex.

Are the laws skewed? You bet they are. Big time. But all it really means is be sure about your relationships. Mine lasted 14 years and I have had another which is now almost 14 years. We make mistakes but we also move on.

Men and women should not loose anything that they had, material or monetary, before the relationship. What should be judged is the responsibility of caring for any children. Men and woman are equally capable to work, and should not be entitled to any support whatever as proceeds of marriage

Franks story is not that uncommon.

As usual blokes feel they are not heard or listened too. In part because men do not talk much about their experiences this limits awareness of what is happening.

The basic senerio is a bloke meets a woman from OS, he thinks he has it made and it appears to be too good to be true.

She comes to Australia, they marry and after 2 years or a child, he is accused of DV, she has citizenship.

Bingo there goes his assests.

RobbyH,
"It's usually the male who uses violence and mostly they get away with it as women want to keep their family together."

Studies which don't assume that DV is a male issue tend to find that women initiate physical DV at a slightly higher rate than men. Have a look at the links I posted in the Cave man thread for a couple of examples. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6232#90240

You could also look at http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID41E2.pdf and http://www.mediaradar.org/ (I don't know the background to that site but some of the material they reference is very relevant).

From what I've seen the studies which find that men initiate the majority of DV are studies which don't seriously consider any other possibility.

Generally when those who disagree do actually engage on the topic they eventually conceed that rates of physical violence are similar but that at the extreme end of DV men inflict serious physical harn at a higher rate than women. I'm not aware of conclusive work on that subject as both genders can and do hide DV claiming accidents as the cause. I think that current research backs up that view.

My understanding is that about 70% of marriage breakups are initiated by women. I can't reference that stat at the moment but if I find it I'll post it. Plenty of men stay with abusive partners to keep the family together.

R0bert

Robert and Robby, you both wrote great posts.

Violence seems to be on the agenda lately. I know from work experience that terrible physical violence is perpetrated on women by men. But by the same token, I also know of terrible violence, emotional and psychological perpetrated on men by women with devastating effects.

Although, women of course also cop this kind of thing. Sri sounded an awful lot like my first true blue Aussie husband of seven years. I actually at one stage wished he would hit me, because that is easier to prove than weeks of silent treatment, verbal abuse and threats. That kind of thing is very difficult to deal with.

We really should have a violence campaign that gives voice to all these kinds of violence, that they are perpetrated by both genders and that they are not acceptable.

As for DVO's. I for the life of me cannot understand how somebody can use this tool over and over and over again without thorough investigation and resolution with some kind of follow-up. It is horrendously misused with the consequence that it is almost useless for women who do need them.

That Frank lost the house he owned before marriage puzzles me. Joint property that was built up over the years of marriage/co-habitation is divided. I suspect there is much more to the story. My ex-husband also accused me of laziness and not being willing to provide the 'comforts of marriage'.

For anyone thinking of getting married or co-habiting I can recommend John Gottman's book 'The seven Principles for making marriage work', otherwise, sign a pre-nuptial agreement.

I'm pretty impressed that Sri, a simple Oriental woman living in [presumably] 3rd world conditions could pull such an elaborate ruse off; at least the child's got one intelligent parent - at least there's some hope for their future.

I say this because I know a situation very similar and the child turned out to be a genius (and thankfully my girlfriend), the father was a complete dolt though.

Strayan,
I can fully understand your logic (perhaps). You know a man who married an Asian woman, and he was a “dolt” by your definition, (which could be regarded as being verbal abuse), so any man who marries an Asian woman must be a “dolt” also.

So because whales swim in the sea, anything that swims in the sea must be a whale.

Seems plausible, and its so good to see things from a different perspective.

>There are already entirely appropriate criminal sanctions for assault and violence whether committed by persons of whatever gender, race, class or creed.<
Are there? Then may I ask why they are not exercised more? Police, when called to an issue of domestic violence, still can be heard dismissing it as merely 'a domestic', making little effort to respond, whether children are exposed to the violence or not. And try to get a policeman to deal with issues of child abuse, or a solicitor... and so on the disinterest goes, right through the judicial system, whatever the gender, race, class or creed, whether adult or child.
Your generalisations in this article display gross understatements, along with a huge lack of understanding, of the dynamics of domestic or other abuse. By either party. There seem also, from your comments, indicators that legal advice was not sought. There are enough anomolies in this article that I would suggest buses could be driven through the gaps they make. Perhaps you should work harder to find the FULL story, from both sides, then rewrite the article. I would be most interested then in knowing the outcome.

"He does all the paid work since Sri refuses to get a job and also does virtually all the housework except the cooking. If he refuses or complains to Sri about her behaviour, she withdraws co-operation from the marriage and accuses Frank of having insulted her"

Is not manipulation, emotional and psychological abuse DV?

It was written somewhere the that strongest indicator of physical violence is where there is an abusive manipulative spouse.

How can a slap be DV when it is an one off event? The Duluth cycle of violence indicates that it is a pattern of violence over many years.

Basically Sri manipulated Frank into this situation and as Erin Pizzey wrote she is the family terrorist.

R0bert, I dont disbelieve your statistic that 70% of marriage breakups are initiated by women, but what are the reasons for the breakup? How does that research treat a marriage breakup where the woman left (or kicked husband out) due to infidelity? How do you know you are getting the truth, when it mostly is a case of he said, she said?

This Asian bitch-from-hell scenario is ridiculous (and racist). If the current DVO laws are inadequate, then offer some reasonable alternatives to change them, instead of misogynist horror stories and diatribes against feminism. Some or all of the following possibilities could be considered:

• a ‘no fault’ DVO system, in which both partners are legally treated as living in a violent home, rather than one partner being named and shamed as perpetrator
• a warning system – in which a partner can be given, say, three warnings over a certain period before legal action can be taken
• a multi-level category – for example, a DVO can be categorised as minor, intermediate or extreme, and treated accordingly in legal terms.

The problem in the DVO system is not feminism. The problem is trying to create a legal framework to address situational or endemic violence between two people who share property and children. Traditionally, this was not a problem as marriage bound people together for life, and a woman was considered the man’s property. Now that the traditional marital system no longer exists – at least in the West – what is needed is for the law to catch up with the changing reality.

MLK
I wonder who keeps portraying “men” as being “perpetrators” of domestic violence.

It wouldn’t be feminist organisation would it.

Of course it couldn't be feminist organisations. Because after all, feminists believe in equality.

As an Attorney (not a lawyer) I used to assist people in their Family Court litigation and knew from personal experiences that it is stacked up against men. When my (then) wife attacked me while I was trying to leave with the light (with my daughter on my arm) and I reported the assault to the police, the laughed! Surely I could defend myself. I persisted in charges and she pleaded GUILTY, getting 6 months probation, no conviction recorded. Seems using a large knife at least provided for 6 months probation. I wonder what I would have gotten if I had used that conduct! Then, later, she pleaded GUILTY of assault upon the children. Even attacking a child in the police station. She got again 6 months probation without conviction recorded.
After I divorced her she got legal aid to sue for the property I had purchased. Moment, I had purchased a property after we split! Not a cent she had contributed in it. I had been involved in a car accident, after we split, and got a pay-out that I used to pay half of the cost of the property. So, being customary with legal proceedings I simply challenged the judge to show jurisdiction to have proceedings as the property was not matrimonial property. Her lawyers (paid-for-by-legal-aid) argued a lot but lost the case!
As for “Frank’s” story, regretfully I came across numerous of simular stories, even without any violence having occurred, but initially claimed as a weapon to get a Intervention Order. It was originated to have intervention orders to protect those abused, but they are in fact now used to the contrary as to being abused to get hold of property otherwise not being able to get. One bloke took me to court for seeking to enter the property he lived on his lawyers making clear the order was justified to keep me out. The magistrate dismissed the case when I explained that as the Attorney for the Owner I had given prior notification in writing to attend for a property inspection and that was it.

Frank is an adult.
Frank entered into this relationship knowing what he was getting himself into. ie he made an informed decision as an adult to get married. It was his choice. Noone forced him to do it.
Frank is a fool.
The system is not there to protect fools from themselves. This is not like purchasing a car where the manufacturer provides a warranty.
Frank hit his wife. The law is there to protect women from people like Frank who see women as some kind of chattel. This is the case whether Sri is a nice person or not.
A man who hits a woman is gutless.
End of story.

MLK,

the problem is extactly feminism!

http://www.franks.org/fr01060.htm
"Feminists themselves use our studies, but they only publish what they like.

"As some feminists say, it's counter-intuitive. We would not expect that to be true; and if things are not expected to be true, for some people they are not true."

Shal,

Noone forced Frank into marriage, however it is extremely doubtful his decision was fully informed.

This story demonstrates that regardless of how a woman treats a man, she comes out the winner.

It is doubtful that Sri behaviour would have been acceptable in her own country, but in this country she gets away with it.

I have read too many stories just like Franks. The courts, the police, the laws aid and abet these types of women.

OH! thats right women are not responsible for their behaviour!

The wife in this case is playing an interesting game, you could call it the black widow or the preying mantis strategy: that is, after mating the female kills and eats the male, as a source of protein and energy for their young.

This hypothetical woman has devoured her mate, she is acting in an evolutionary successful manner, so I do not see where the problem is, excepting of course that we as humans don't really approve of cannibalism, even symbolic cannibalism.

However this woman is walking a fine line, one which she has navigated her ex partner through very well: She has the house, a good proportion of his wealth, child support payments and a good chance of getting spousal support as well. This poor man may be up for something like $10,000 a year or more in spousal support for a good number of years.

Other woman have failed in this strategy: they have pushed too hard, or not chosen their victim quite as carefully: their victims have given up and killed themselves, resulting in less positive financial outcome for the exploiter. This is one reason for the recent trend towards trying to prevent male suicide, after all, in the words of our Prime Minister, we live in an economy, not a society. The death of a productive and profitable male means that the rest of the economy has to support the non-grieving widow.

I know that there are a large number of abusive men out their, and no violence by males or females can be justified.

But driving men to suicide, or 'slavery', is a version of violence that we as an 'economy' seem to accept. Or will we just accept the black-widow strategy as being a valid one?

Country Gal, the stuff I've seen does not go into reasons. I made the point because of the commonly expressed view that it's men who leave. In context with the claim about women sticking around for the sake of the family (which does often happen). In hindsight it may not have been as relevant as it seemed at the time.

To all posters sticking the boot into Frank. Frank made some silly decisions. Frank may have wanted a compliant asian wife but the story does not tell us that, that bit is speculation. Frank chose to use violence - according to the story once and of relatively low level. If the story is as told does that justify the governments involement in handing over his assets to another party who has not worked for those assets?

Would your sympathy be as lacking for a woman who made silly choices and suffered in some other way?

Does the penalty fit the crime?

HRS, paternalists who consider women less responsible for their choices are part of the problem as well. Those who somehow regard women as less able to make informed choices, less able to control emotional responses than men laid the groundwork for some of the silly application of the law which forms part of this problem. Your excessive hatred of feminism blinds you to part of the problem. Have you ever read Patricia Pearson's work on female violence? Not all feminists consider women to be unable to take responsiblity for their actions and choices.

R0bert

While feeling sympathy for Frank, I can't help but think how many opportunities he had to spot that trouble was brewing and bail out before being committed so far.

I somehow suspect that his brief courtship with Sri were spent getting his rocks off and what a good time he must have had. Why else would he know so little about this woman and still accept her suspected lies?

Even upon arrival in Australia, how could he not have spotted the problems prior to her permanent residency being established and definitely before having a child together. Again, the big head let the little head do the thinking.

As to the laws which allow this all to happen, you have to wonder why such unfair laws exist. My belief is that these cumbersome and unfair laws generate a lot of work for the legal profession so there is little motivation for the legal profession to change anything. Perhaps one answer could be for jurys to be used to decide family law matters. At least a bit of common sense might prevail.

Juries would be inappropriate

They are, after all, made up of the general public. And that is not an informed opinion. It's bigoted people whose ideologue are based on urban myth. And that urban myth is channelled by the dominant publication of the time.

For a place like Brisbane, you're looking at the Courier-Mail. That publication is aimed at the lowest common denominator. Not the most analytical bunch.

People read that publication and think they're informed. It's a joke.

Crumpethead,
Your thoughts that there should be a jury in Family Law is probably quite constitutional.

I’m not an expert in constitutional law, but I once read an account by someone who was, and apparently the present Family Law system has never been constitutional since the time it was formed.

It was thrown together by the Hawk government in collaboration with Lionel Murphy (who ironically was latter charged with perjury), under the belief that women were being oppressed by marriage. That belief has since been debunked, and in fact mental illness rates in unmarried or single women are currently twice the rates of married women.

As well, “no child will be left in poverty” has proven a dismal failure, as the average child abducted from their father is normally placed straight into poverty. So there are more children living in poverty than ever before.

As for Sri, she became empowered. She got Frank’s money, and did not have to work for it.

As for Frank, he became depowered. He had to work, and then give his money to Sri.

But I’ve noticed that empowering men as well as women is rarely mentioned by feminists.

What I find interesting is how some choose to fill in the blanks of Frank's story to suit their preconceptions and justify the example given of how unbalanced the laws are.

aqvarivs, I see things just a little differently:

The wife has done, in an evolutionary, or self-centred way, nothing wrong: she has provided for her child and her own welfare, probably even assuring her grand-children's and great grand-children's welfare.

She has found a way to become financially secure, at someone else's expense, but isn't that what we do all the time? We buy the cheapest goods available, suitable for the purpose, without giving a tinker's about the wage paid to the person who made it, or the resources required for our comfort. (To use an extreme example, each late 19th century bicycle tyre cost one African life for the rubber, but did this stop westerners from riding bicycles?).

Many of us drive cars that have capacities beyond our needs, we live in homes that would have been considered to be palaces in comparison with those our grandparents grew up in.

This is the way of the world. There is only so much cake, and how it is cut defines our world view.

The wife has seen a way to advantage herself, and her genes, by deception, manipulation and outright fraud. She has used the tools available to her, which include, apart from her body (anyone else here think of prostitution?) the law and society's attitudes towards DV.

In this free market, liberal capitalist world she has done nothing wrong. In fact she has done extremely well. The law is but a tool, a means to an end.

Our society has become its own Hobbesian nightmare, where life is mean, brutal and often short. The difference is that we have few of the underpinnings of a real society: instead the individual is king or queen: who gives a damn about anyone else? If you do, then you are essentially stupid.

Men are here to be exploited by women: simple as that.

HRS re your statement;

“I’m not an expert in constitutional law, but I once read an account by someone who was, and apparently the present Family Law system has never been constitutional since the time it was formed.”
As a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” I can state that there are constitutional rights and wrongs with Family Law.
The Family Court of Western Australia is the only constitutional valid Family Court. All Magistrates Courts invested with federal jurisdiction also can validly deal with family law matters, as the framers of the constitution made clear that the Commonwealth could legislate but could not enforce its own legislation as it had to be State Courts doing so.
Also, that the Commonwealth could not interfere with State judicial processes. As such any legislation in the Family Law act dictating State Courts how to conduct proceedings would be unconstitutional, as such ULTRA VIRES.

But getting back to Frank’s issue, it is not relevant if the specific details relate to Frank or whomever, the fact is that Interventions orders are grossly misused. Even people using them to prevent a landlord to collect rent!

While undoubtly most people suffering from injustice in Family Court proceedings are males, there are also male ratbags who abuse the processes. For example, a woman in Geelong had an operation in hospital and a stay of about 2-weeks to recover and when she came out the husband had changed the locks and had an ex-parte Court order that he had interim custody. He had simply filed proceedings but his wife knew of nothing and the case listed as to coincide with the time the wife was in hospital so it could proceed ex-parte. By the time the woman finally had a hearing it was about a year later and by then the Court held the husband had been the carer for the children for the past year and it was against their interest to change it now. Yes, while perhaps not often as with men, there are also women who are denied justice!
I deplore anyone to abuse the legal processes, regardless of their gender!

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka

Thank you for the account you gave regarding a woman who was a victim of the DV system (and your previous harrowing account of your own experience). I myself believe the DV system needs reform and this opinion was mainly formed by experiences I have witnessed with the marital separations of two female friends during the last three years.

Both these women left their husbands, due to prolonged violence in their marriages (some of which I directly witnessed). Because both husbands had a DVO history from previous marriages (as defendents), they knew how to work the system. Both husbands took out DVOs immediately on separation, despite the fact that they themselves were overwhelmingly the violent party.

When the first DVO incident happened, I thought it must have been an isolated case. Then when the second DVO incident occurred with the other friend, I started making enquiries about how frequently this is happening. I have since learned from a local Women’s Support Group that this phenomenon – of violent men taking out DVOs against the very wives they have abused – is increasing at an alarming rate.

Of course, all husbands cannot be judged by the behaviour of these two men. However, I think it’s important that, not only should the DVO system be reformed, these reforms must be driven by compassion and fairness (particularly taking in account the issues of shared property and children) – not the kind of vindictive gender bigotry that has crawled out of the sewers and onto this particular forum.

R0bert
I’ve finally had a look at some of the DV studies you linked to, which indicate that women are just as violent as men (or more violent) in intimate relationships.

Although the studies are though-provoking, I have difficulty understanding how the DV percentages are so at odds with gender violence crimes in the wider society. I can’t understand how women and men can be equally violent in intimate relationships, while most studies have consistently shown that:
• femicides committed by men outnumber homicides committed by women by 3 to 1
• 3 out of 5 femicides are committed by intimate partners
• most femicides arise out of a history of domestic violence.

Added to this are statistics showing that men commit ten times as many sexual assaults as women and have four times the number of criminal convictions. Surely there ought to be more of a numerical gender correlation between femicide, rape, overall crime rates and domestic violence.

This essay from the University of NSW assesses some of the problems in the methodology used in studies that show equal amounts of DV between the genders: http://www.austdvclearinghouse.unsw.edu.au/topics/topics_pdf_files/Men_as_Victims.pdf

The main problems the essay highlights in these studies are:
• They rely on self-disclosure, which can be socially prejudiced and unreliable.
• The absence of context – there is no distinction between offensive and defensive violence.
• They don’t include whether or not the parties condone the violence or are intimidated by it.
• They make little to no distinction between frequent and infrequent violence, or extreme and mild violence.
• They make little distinction between the average differences in height, weight and strength between men and women.
• The 12-month time frame is too limited to assess the full history of violence within a relationship.

If these factors were included more, we could get a much more accurate assessment of the role of violence in intimate relationships. We could also obtain a clearer idea of whether there is a significant difference in the reasons why men and women commit domestic violence.

the 'fact' is the most important...and the legal systems fundamental duty to extract this...yes even with manipulative lying and deceit for benefit skillfully applied with words while projecting appropriate body language in it...and I think this is the fundamental failure which has caused dv jurisdiction to become quite abused...

talking about facts...last week as witness in court and while waiting this middle-aged man came from 'legal-aid' room occupied by female solicitor...sat next to me and started talking...had dv hearing that afternoon laid by chinese internet bride whom lived with him for 2 weeks...his reason was he was told by 'lawyers' that if he was in a relationship with woman...then chances of meaningful care in family court, due soon, was good for his 8yrs child...

asked him what exactly was the charges...he didnt know...asked what did the legal aid lawyer say...just court procedure...and consenting without pleading to avo...so evidence process not necessary...he showed the charge sheet...verbal and demanding sex...which he denied...

what he didnt know was child safest with biological father single parent family...should be better position in family court...nor skill at judging true intention of his bride apparently...who agreed to help care for his child...just words without any acts to go by...nutss

asked what his biggest mistake was...'beleiving her'...and his desperate need to improve his people judging skills...as he had just put his child at risk...I had to leave so hope the hearing went in his favour...I suggested that he demand from magistrate that the charges be pleaded with specificity as they were too vague to respond...and a good legal book on 'proof' to read before the next hearing...

and I agree...if he had good skills at the above...he certainly would not have been in that position...nor put his child at risk by ignorance...

essentially...court action must ensure that there is no end financial/property benefit linked to dv law application otherwise the abuse of jurisdiction is set to continue...

Sam
Ps~my given name is sri...and not come across a female with it before...just men...so did feel odd to read it in unbalanced self-interest feminine context...the bain of our society...

There is lots of terrible comments about the other gender, and very few suggestions on how the system might be reformed to counteract the exploitation. At the end of the day, the asset allocations are supposed to be made to advantage the kids. Whoever gets custody gets the bulk of the assets. Whilstever the kids are at home, then that is reasonably fair. It also takes into account that whoever has the kids will generally have a dampened earning capacity, due to either having to work shorter hours, OR having to pay for chldcare. Again, this is reasonable fair.

What ISNT fair, is that once this asset split occurs, it is permanent. The wife (or husband) shouldnt get 70-80% of the assets FOREVER. An alternative arrangement is a trust-type arrangement. The fmaily home gets put into a trust that exists whilever a child is living at home. To prevent exploitation, this can continue only until the youngest reaches a certain age (say 25-30, whatever is deemed reasonable). Once the youngest child has left home, the trust ends and a fair property split ensues. This can be decided on at the time of the original split. Eg wife (with custody) gets to live in the house whilever the kids are there, then perhaps she also will need to find somewhere else to live. Ideally the asset gets sold at that point, and there is simply a monetary split.

This is in recognition of the fact that women SHOULD be able to fend for themselves. When there are kids involved, different story and the kids should have the benefit of both parents assets. Custodial parent might get a bit of a bonus from being able to use an asset that technically doesnt belong to her, but when you consider the extra unpaid work that that parent would do, then its probably fair.

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka
The person who determined that the Family Law system was unconstitutional had found that someone had the constitutional rights to ask for a jury.

They also found that when juries are removed from a legal system, the system normally becomes dictatorial, corrupt, and driven by money, which is exactly what has happened to the Family Law system

Legislation currently being proposed for Domestic Violence in Victoria says that the accused cannot represent themselves, and now has to hire a layer.

But the ability to ultimately represent yourself in your own defence is one of the main principals of our legal system, so that the legislation being proposed for Victoria is a further erosion of not just constitutional or legal rights, but also of human rights.

Sri and Frank are probably fictitious, but the outcome is extremely common and very real. With 50,000 divorces each and every year, and 90% of the time the children will now live with the mother, the father is removed from the children’s lives, and the father has to pay money to the mother without any say in how the money is spent.

That is the normal outcome regardless of the details of the divorce. It is a highly feminist system, but I doubt very much whether this system suits children, men, or women in the longer term.

Hamlet,
I have some dramatic lyrics for you. Its called “Dog Eat Dog” by Joni Mitchell

http://www.musicbabylon.com/artist/Joni_Mitchell/Dog_Eat_Dog/132062-dog_eat_dog-lyrics.htm

It was written in 1985, and isn’t it amazing how some things never change.

MLK,
Of course any type of anecdotal evidence is representative of all men right throughout Australia.

But it is interesting how after a 2003 nationwide survey carried out by Relationships Australia titled “Relationship Indicators Survey”, they established a list of “Issues Negatively Influencing Partnership Relationships”.

There are 18 issues on that list, with violence at the very bottom of the list at 2%, or the least likely issue of all.

MLK thanks both for reading the material I referenced and providing the link you did.

I've not seen that particular paper before although the arguments against CTS are similar to those used by Michael Flood in a paper he has attacking the findings of the Melbourne study I referenced. My overall impression is that they go to considerable effort to attack CTS without any apparent effort to address the significant issues in the studies used to support the view that DV is overwhelmingly perpetrated by men. The alternate proposals appear to revolve around the introduction of assumptions about the nature of men, women and power into the collection and interpretation of the data.

The Mulroney and Chan paper appears to rely heavily on a few assumpions
- feminist ideology regarding power in the community is equally valid in the family home.
- if there is mutual abuse then the male is the likely perpetrator and the female is defending herself. I'm not absolutely sure they assume that but it was the impression I gained.
- that males are likely to overstate their partners violence and understate their own and female will do the reverse.

The Melbourne study (Headey, Scott and de Vauss) discusses a number of the points raised in opposition to CTS.

I oppose the use of ideology to underpin research as it distorts the results in a manner the casual reader may not realise. When they read that males are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of DV most readers will not understand that conclusion is based on a feminst view of gender power which dismisses most female violence as standing up to oppression or self defence. They will interpret it as meaning that men are much more likely to use physical violence in a relationship than women.

Context and intent are important but only important if we use the specific context and intent the violence occurs in not generalised ideological viewpoints.

R0bert

Hello HRS,
What were the top 5 "NO - NO's" in the Relationships Australia Survey of Negatives affecting domestic bliss ?

Robert the feminist themselves used the CTS until other researchers began using this scale, it only then that the feminists start criticising it.

In other words once the research tool nolonger supports their position they then attack it. Muddying the water even further.

MLK, now to the other issue - why would inside the home be different to outside.

I've not seen any serious work on that topic so the following is my ponderings on the topic rather than an attempt at a proven conclusion.

Initially I thought that the may be a result of all the publicity against DV where the male is the perpetrator but as far as I can tell similar results have been found for a long time. My perception is that the overall difference in rates of DV by males and females are regarded as not being statistically significant. Recent studies tend to show women doing slightly more DV than men older studies I think were slightly the other way.

All of the following have exceptions and are generalizations rather than hard and fast rules.

The things that seem relevant to me are
- Males are socialized to compete outside the family and sacrifice and protect inside. Our roles are different in the outside world and inside the family. Society gives a lot of respect to tough guys but wife bashers are regarded as cowards.
- I don't think that the feminist belief in male power is true in the home. In many ways the home has been seen as the woman’s domain. The home and family is one place where many women may have for some time have had power.
- Women use differing techniques when fighting amongst themselves to those used by men out in the world. Techniques that don't work as well with male intimate partners.
- We don't treat violence by women as seriously as we treat violence by men so the rate of reporting and prosecution for female violence will be less. I don't think this explains the gap but it could be a contributing factor.

I'd strongly recommend a read of Patricia Pearson's book "When She Was Bad" for one feminist writers perspective on female violence and the harm done to women by the way it is treated by paternalists and some feminists.

R0bert

Hamlet, sorry for the late response. OLO's law. :-)
It can be viewed that men have been victims of female exploitation since the first man came back to the tribe with a shiny flake of metal or a high quality fur. It wasn't that the woman understood the value, it cost her no effort how could she, it was that she saw the value the men, knowing the sacrifice, placed on the object and unthinkingly women began to compete with objects. Women, to bury this objectification of self, perpetuate the picture of early man having to knock the innocent unaware woman over the head and drag her back to the cave and assault her. Except todays woman still spends the greatest part of their daily life in front of a mirror with a collection of war paint. Still mimicking male society. of course women today have taken the self-objectification to the max with plastic representation of the perfect body parts. It should be no surprise to men that women are still wishing to possess the "things" men value. Which makes feminism so sad. Women trying to establish the right to things men value and comparing themselves to things to establish their own value. The unfortunate reality today with the feminisation of the male, men are now beginning to compare themselves to the objects that were once value judged for their difficulty and sacrifice to acquire but, are now common place and no longer hold that initial value. The competing of victim societies. Women are victims of male society and men are victims of female society and both arguing who is the bestest victim. Of course it's all done in the name of equality. Unfortunately, the shiny bits today are chrome plated plastic not a rare find. Same with individual people, mimicking the socialist value of the lowest common denominator. Everyone can not afford diamonds so give them fakes. If everyone has a fake diamond then the fake becomes equal to the true and then with little manipulation anything can become true whether factually or not. Don't look below the surface.

Firstly, I do not accept it being constitutionally permissible for self-representation in Courts to be outlawed, as the Framers of the Constitution made clear that the Commonwealth would have no powers to interfere with the Magna Charta provisions or deny them.
.
A major problem is that that the Courts do not apply the same equality to sentencing a woman as a man, if they both conduct the same offence. As I previously indicated a woman getting twice 6 months probation with no conviction recorded, would have been totally different had a male done the same. If a male were to attack a sleeping child in a police station he would likely have been immediately behind bars! As such statistics as to convictions are not helpful as women often get off without conviction!
.
Another major problem is that Intervention orders have become the “in thing” to be used whenever one of the partners decide to get out of a relationship as to secure by this the residence, the paperwork (very important in property settlement), the children (child support) and also the long term property settlement benefits. After all, get the child or children and you get probably 70% of the assets. The fact that the children are then dumped is another thing.
In my view, we should return to the “FAULT” system where the parent at fault suffer the consequences, and not as now gets rewarded.
There was this seaman who was putting all his money towards a business his wife was looking after so as to secure for a retirement. The wife however got involved with an employee, sold the business purchased a house with the money and left all outstanding bills to her husband. The Family Court had the gall to order for him to pay not just the outstanding bills of the business but also his wife’s rates, etc. Then someone suggested he seeks my help, he did, and subsequently all orders were set aside. I never accepted monies from him, just asked him to assist others as I had assisted him. He-has-one-so-now-for-more-then-10-years, and-counting.

Kartiya Jim
Here is the list

“Issues negatively Influencing Partnership Relationships” from “2003 Relationship indicators survey” by Relationships Australia

http://www.relationships.com.au/resources/pdfs/reports-submissions/ri2003exec_summ.pdf

Lack of time to spend together 38%
Lack of understanding each others views 27%
Lack of communication 21%
Financial securities and difficulties 20%
Different goals and expectations 19%
Helping bring up children 14%
Inability to solve conflict 13%
Serious injury or disability 10%
Recent accident or traumatic event 8%
Job loss/ unemployment 7%
Lack of trust 6%
Alcohol or drug issues 6%
Influence of ex-partners 5%
Different cultural backgrounds 5%
Gambling 3%
Affairs 3%
Violence 2%

So if feminists were concerned about women and men, (and not just concerned about feminists), then feminists would be focussing on what is at the top of the list.

But instead, feminists are focussing all their efforts and their taxpayer money on the last item of the list, or the issue least likely to occur.

The top item on the list is 19 times more likely to occur than the bottom item, but it is ignored. Why?

My theory is that feminists want men out working and earning money, because they know that the money he earns will go to the woman. Whatever hers is hers, and whatever his is hers also.

The last item on the list is being exaggerated out of all proportion. In their inglorious feminist report into domestic violence, VIChealth said that domestic violence was the number 1 health issue for women, but hidden in the report, 99.4% of the women who were deemed by VIChealth to have been abused by their intimate male partner, didn’t even have a physical injury. Only 0.6% had a physical injury.

Its a giant scam being carried out by feminists, but the scam is teaching women to be drama queens, prostitutes and fraudsters, or as someone mentioned previously, the equivalent of the female preying mantis.

HRS, try being the female in a relationship when you earn the majority of the income. Its not exactly good for relationship harmony. Why? Because I suspect men are still also stuck in the old caveman "me man, me get food" way of thinking. Men still like to be the provider (but reserve the right to whinge about how women spend money). Even in households where both husband and wife work, I wonder who it is that normally drops the kids at childcare/school and pays the fees. Gee, the mother! Why is this? Its the presumption that the man's job is more important, and that his right to go and work comes first. This seems to be the case even when you are looking at highly successful professional women. Some things never change. Dont get me wrong, there are some exceptions to the rule out there, but I havent come across many. Even the exceptions are usually born from negotiation (eg the man being asked to take on that responsibility), rather than the assumption that this is the way it will work. Its these subtle undercurrents that reinforce the different values that society places on a mans work and a womans work.

Country Gal,

There is almost no difference in the hours being worked by men and women (when paid and unpaid work are combined). The main difference is the type of work being carried out, and in various studies I have seen, it definitely appears that this is the way women want it. I have seen no study to suggest otherwise.

Men do more paid work, and in that work there are now job reviews and high expectations of continuous improvement in productivity.

Unpaid work has minimal job reviews, and minimal expectations of continuous improvements in productivity.

Sri would not have come out very well with a job review, and if she was being paid, she probably would have been given the sack a long time ago.

Men are doing the more arduous, demanding and stressful work, and always have. They are naturally supplied with a special hormone called testosterone to enable them to cope.

Nearly everything is built by a male or invented by a male. In return, men are now being given a kick in the teeth by feminists, the Family Law system and quite a lot of average women in society, or these women are being taught by feminists to use men and then discard them at will (after taking their money and their children of course).

I don’t think that society will last very long in these circumstances.

HRS you are right.

Only 0.6% had a physical injury.

In the economic cost of DV to society, what they did was take a very small sample size and then multiplied those costs by the much used statistic of 1 in 4.

Thus an error get multiplied by a huge factor, and the figure quoted of billions of dollars looks impressive. Basically it is a snow job.

As country gal demonstrated there are a lot of women who feel or believe that they are better people than men, so have a hard time accepting that perhaps they could be wrong.(occasionally)

I think around 30% of mothers are actually what is known as maternal gate keepers and some really do get their noses out of joint.

Nobody wins, with the arguement who is more worse off, than the other.

A poster wrote that whoever gets the kids gets the bulk of the assets.

That's simply not true.

It is largely dependent on the individual circumstances of the couple. What they are now earning. What their future earning potential is. What their ability is to provide for themselves and their children. What costs will arise due to the individual circumstances and needs of the children, wife, and husband.

AT the end of the day, if the marital wealth is largely insignificant, the settlement difference is usually nsignificant as well.

The more significant the marital wealth, the more likely the chances of the split being 50/50, regardless of who the childen reside with. And I'm talking about high-income earners here. Not Greg and Laura Norman type wealth.

'I have since learned from a local Women’s Support Group that this phenomenon – of violent men taking out DVOs against the very wives they have abused – is increasing at an alarming rate.'

Mlk

This type of strategy is common because of the subversive mens' 'support' groups that have flourished in recent years. They coach the members on these strategies.

Country Gal, re your proposal from Wednesday, 22 August 2007 1:25:27 PM. On the surface it makes good sense. Like most proposals in this area there would be some practical issues to overcome (repayments depending on the proportion owned vs borrowed, cost of maintenance, ability to borrow against part of the value of the property so the other party to finance the purchase of another home etc) but those kind of issues should be able to be worked out without extreme difficulty.

Liz, when I was involved with a mens group the message was very clear only use a DVO/AVO if the other party has been violent. It was generally believed that womens groups were coaching women to use them as a tool to gain control of the kids and property. I've no doubt that some men are misusing them, others will be using them as a counter to malicious claims made against them just as some women will be doing both those actions.

In the mean time those who have genuinely been victims of abuse are believed less because of the abuse of a system put in place to try and help.

R0bert

Liz
Why don’t you invite one of these “subversive mens' support' groups” to one of your “Women’s Support Group” meetings, and have a combined meeting.

I have only heard of a few men’s groups, but they are all open to women.

In fact the Men’s Rights Agency is run by a woman. The Lone Father’s Association has 30% female membership and 50% of the executive is female. I think there is the Dad in Distress organisation that has also formed the Mums in Distress group. And there is the Fatherhood Foundation that is run by a pastor and his wife.

So I don’t think they are “male patriarchy” or a danger to “women and their children”, or maybe its “women and their property”.

HRS, I am only talking about paid work. This is where issues like who pays for childcare comes up. I also limit my discussion on this to professional women, who earn good incomes and are expected to work long hours of paid work (and be subject to the same reviews and productivity requirements of their male counterparts). For a professional couple, who should pay for childcare? Usually, it is still the woman who does, and who drops off and picks up the children. Where men are involved, it is usually as a result of negotiation, rather than the assumption that this is their role. Women are generally assumed to be responsible for organising the care of children if they want to/have to work.

"Unpaid work has...minimal expectations of continuous improvements in productivity" - I dont agree. There are constantly time-improving products on the market. These gadgets help reduce time spent on domestic chores the same way as machinery/technology improvements speed up productivity at paid work.

"Men are doing the more arduous, demanding and stressful work, and always have. They are naturally supplied with a special hormone called testosterone to enable them to cope" Load of rubbish! I come from a farming background, and the women have always worked as hard as the men in that field. In fact women are now often preferred to men in farm employment, as they have been shown to be more open to instruction and more careful with expensive machinery. Several large farms will only employ a man if they cannot source a woman to do the job, for precisely the reasons stated.

"Nearly everything is built by a male or invented by a male". Then why do women make up such a large proportion of factory workers? And try watching the New Inventors on the ABC - lots of women on there too.

Country Gal, I agree with most of your comments to HRS.
I grew up on a farm and my mother certainly did her share around the place.

The out of hours care which my son attends seems to have a fairly even split in the gender of the parents I see dropping kids off and picking them up. I'm hoping the situation you describe is changing. Some years ago I seemed to be a rarety at child care facilities (but not extremely rare), now men are much more involved in our area.

R0bert

Country Gal,
I’ve worked in a number of factories and the operators there are often in charge of equipment worth many millions of dollars. Normally those factories cannot get women to work inside the factories (although the women who do work inside the factories can be good workers). However women normally want to work in an office somewhere where the pay is less. Similarly the factories can have many difficulties trying to get female apprentices for trade jobs, as they just won’t apply. They apply for clerk jobs and office jobs, but not for trade jobs, and this makes a significant difference in the pay rates for women.

Also it is very difficult to invent and develop anything if you have no trade or engineering background, which is the main reason why nearly all patents are developed by males.

However I will tell you a true story relating to abuse.

One factory had a female Personal Relations Officer straight out of University who was highly feminist. She wanted to read all notices and forms before they went out to employees to ensure they were gender neutral. She even began asking to read the computer code we were writing to ensure that any comments we inserted into the code were gender neutral.

One day she went to see an employee working in the factory who was nearly 3 times her age, and in the course of talking to him, he called her “luv”. He called all women “luv”, including all other women working in the factory, his wife, his daughters, the woman next door, the bar maid, any women he met on the street etc.

However when he called the feminist Personal Relations Officer “luv”, she marched him up to the manager and accused him of abuse and sexual harassment.

In the negotiations that followed, he had to agree to never call her “luv” again. The word "luv" was outlawed.

That is the feminist world, where anything and everything can now be interpreted as being abuse

Actually HRS, I don't see that the word 'luv' has any place in any workplace at all. It is demeaning for both the speaker and the recipient: In the same way when I am dealing with clients I would never call them 'mate', because they are not my 'mates', and neither are female clients 'luvs', 'dears' or 'darlins'.

How we address people reflect what we think of them, and how we treat them. What is wrong with showing people some respect? Or are you so hide-bound that you cannot see that calling someone 'luv' is a put-down?

I am against what I consider to be the 'excesses' of feminism. I believe that domestic violence is far to common, from both genders, so I disagree with those who claim that domestic violence should be called 'violence against women', because it is violence against women, men, children, siblings and parents. I would like to see definitions of 'domestic violence' to include one parent denigrating the other parent to their children, to include alcoholic behaviour from either gender where it adversely affects other people in the household, even where no punch is thrown, no bruise is raised nor blood is spilt.

I would like to see police empowered to deal with female perpetrators the same way that they deal with males, for instance to never hear again a police officer say, as one said to me: "No magistrate will ever issue an AVO against a 'sick' (ie violent as a result of alcohol induced psychosis) woman."

But I am not against those parts of feminism that act against all women being characterised as 'luv', whether that is spoken by a male or a female.

When I used to call a female worker into my office (even my own wife who was employed there - I had not employed her!) I would always ensure that there would be another female present. Hence, I never had any problems about accusations of sexual harassment. However, other staff members who used to criticise me for being over protective soon or later found themselves accused as to sexual harassment after having called one of their female workers into their office.
It is regrettable but far too often sexual harassment is being used where none may have taken place. Even if a woman misconceived what was stated by a male she complains and the male - unless he had the conversation recorded – basically has no way to disprove it didn’t happen.
On the factory floor a female is only allowed to lift 5 kg and a male 25 kg and men used to complaint that women want equal pay but not equal work!
I never did permit any of the workers to use nick-names, foul language, indecent gestures, etc as I made clear everyone is entitled to enjoy working without being harassed by fellow workers. Once, when a male worker used an indecent gesture I sacked him on the spot. The company backed me up because they found that since I had taken over no complaints had arisen while before my time there were often complaints.
It does not matter if one is a male or female as every worker is entitled in its employment to be free of harassment. At least that was my position and the rule I applied stingily! And decades later former workers still make known to me that they it was the best kind of employment conditions they ever had.

Jesus bloody christ.(yeah I know I took the lords name in vain)

The words 'luv', 'darling' are used as terms of endearments, it is a coruption to take offense at the use of these words.

I have no problem with the use of these words, it is usually the older generation who use these words. If you take offense then get over it and grow up.

People who choose to take offense at the use of these words is a bully. Some may even be power hungry megalomaniacs.

It has been more than a few times that I have heard female colleagues complain that the work place has become oppressive. No fun anymore.

Hamlet
The feminist Personnel Relations Officer lasted 12 months. She lived a rather lonely life, because no one would go to her for anything. She used to say that her door was always open, but no one wanted anything to do with her. If she walked around a corner, both the men and the women in the factory would walk around another corner.

There ain’t no love in Family Law or in feminism. It’s a loveless world. Its all about money. How much money he has, and how much of his money can be given to her.

The man is no good, but his money is good, so his money has to taken from him and given to her. Also the man is no good, but his children are good, so his children have to be taken from him and given to her.

There is also very little domestic violence in Australia. Even Relationship Australia now acknowledge that.

There is an enormous amount of domestic violence if you read feminist literature, but if you read the finer details, then a feminist will often classify anything as being domestic violence. This even includes a 60 year old man calling a 20 year old woman “luv”, (and he did call men “mate” also).

In the feminist world there is no mateship or love. Its all about money, and Dog Eat Dog.

http://www.musicbabylon.com/artist/Joni_Mitchell/Dog_Eat_Dog/132062-dog_eat_dog-lyrics.htm

JAMES H...yes, you did take the Lords name in vain. I'm curious why ?

It added nothing to the weight of your otherwise strong statement.

I must do a study one day... why is it that our most pronounced 'swearing' is connected to such wonderful things.

-Jesus xxxxxxxxx beep beeep... Christ. "He who gave himself for mankind"

-F*_k this that the other thing..... "The most beautiful expression of human intimacy and love"

-C*&t "The ultimate symbol of womanhood and the means of human reproduction" hmmm maybe we hate our lives, so we hate where we came from ?

It kind of says something about just how lost we are when the most precious, becomes or is used as the strongest means of abuse and obscenity.

There must be some deep dark psychological reasons for this, but as yet I've not unwrapped them. I can only guess that we feel we have never achieved fulfillment in these areas,
-Spiritual
-Sexual
-Love

that we take them and attack them in our speech. Perhaps its some kind of self hating or a hatred for those things we dearly wanted but could never thus far obtain that comes out ? I dunno....

Feminism, in my view is the very same thing, but on the scale of a social movement. You could describe feminists as a social swear word, based on missed opportunity, absense of love, unfulfilled dreams, sense of rejection...and all this has been turned into a rage and hate of the things it desperately wanted.

SOLUTION...... yep..there is one. Humble ourselves (male and female) and seek to offer love toward each other, that we may receive it back.
Seek the best for others and not just ourselves. I could offer a truckload of scripture verses here, but the 'A-Team' would be on my case like a pitt bull on a Chiwahwa :)

JamesH wrote:

"The words 'luv', 'darling' are used as terms of endearments, it is a coruption (sic) to take offense at the use of these words."

Endearments? Then keep those words for those who are dear to you.

Personally I prefer to be respected, and to give respect, from and to the vast majority of people in my life than to receive hollow 'endearments' from them. I will not call the young woman who serves me at the delicatessen 'dear' or 'luv' because she is neither of these to me. I will however respect her, and those other around me who I interact with.

Your attitude brings to mind an incident that I heard about in a public service organisation around 20 years ago. A client came to the counter, and the person serving him asked "Can I help you sir?". The client bristled and spat out the reply: "Don't call me SIR!", the officer, with quick repartee returned: "Well wadda you want, c**t". The client turned red and left without getting what he wanted.

Respect had been offered initially, disrespect returned, then a reply in kind.

As for the HR person who left the organisation fairly quickly, I can understand that. She was obviously not respected, why should she want to work with a group of people whose views of relationships were frozen in the 1950s?

In the article that started this topic it is clear that neither person actually respected each other. The male saw an attractive 'mail order bride' and the woman saw a meal ticket. No respect on either side. Of course this relationship was going to fail miserably.

Boaz_David
James H could have said “bloody hell”, which is perhaps more representative of a family law matter, when any love is disregarded and the claws and knives come out.

Hamlet,
I think the employees at the factory had been around long enough to know who to respect, who they could readily approach, and who to avoid.

That was why they avoided the feminist, because by just having a simple conversation with the feminist and they could find themselves on a charge of abuse.

“It's dog eat dog, ain't it Flim Flam man
Dog eat dog, you can lie, cheat, skim, scam
Beat'em any way you can”

However in our gender neutral feminist world, the lyrics should really be

“It's dog eat dog, ain't it Flim Flam person
Dog eat dog, you can lie, cheat, skim, scam
Beat'em any way you can”

So now either a man or a woman is capable of lying, cheating, skimming and scamming.

I think Frank became aware of that, although rather too late.

But I don’t think such situations are solely with mail order brides (whoever they are). I know quite a few women who brought nothing into the marriage except a wardrobe full of clothes, but when the marriage was dissolved and sold off in little pieces, the man was hardly left with the shirt on his back.

Such is modern life.

Posted by Hamlet

Hamlet my LUV, they are not words that I use at all, DEAREST Darling.

I have no objection to anyone calling me Luv or Dear, etc etc.

Actually I think the use of these words is perhaps cockney in origin, but then I could be wrong.

Like I wrote before they are not words I choose to use, nor have I ever used them, until now. And anyone who chooses to take offense at the use of these words is a BULLY. The type of person who will take offense whenever it is advantageous to them, in order to make another person feel bad.

That is all.

It is not the first time in history where free speech was oppressed. Political correctness has nothing to do with equality or freeing the oppressed group, PC is about creating oppression, just like the rescuers who freed common people and then became oppressers them selves.

Be it religous or political, they are all tarred with the same brush, first they offer freedom, then once they have the people believing in them, they create new rules to oppress. Just like the pigs in George Orwells Animal Farm.

Does not Hamlet see and talk to ghosts?

Perhaps, I might be deemed from the old school, but I do not refer to “dear” when it comes to friends or strangers. Not even in my letter headings. I had once, when I had attended to a woman residence (accompanied-by-a-friend) and was just leaving down the stair-case when the woman suddenly kissed me on the cheek. It was her way of tanking me for assisting her, but it took me by surprise. On the next visit I did explain to her in a friendly manner that it was not the kind of conduct I desired, albeit I understood her good intentions, and also her offering monies was against my principles and I asked her to refrain in future to ever offer money again. As I then explained people who really like to assist do not do so to get some reward from those they help.
Turn out that this woman was so impressed with my conduct that some time later we ended up getting married, and still are!
Regretfully, not just woman but also men are too often looking what they can get out of it and then the Frank & Sri situation is more likely to eventuate.
Perhaps the good old days of mutual respect might just avoid a lot of problems.
Men who go out to look for an overseas bride, generally do so darn well knowing that a younger woman more then likely has her own plans.
Some two decades ago a young university student asked me to marry her. Sure, I was flattered in one way as she was indeed a beautiful woman, but I declined, because as I explained to her that her reasons to get married would be to gain permanent residence, and I do not believe that one should misuse the institution of marriage for that purpose. She subsequently became married to another man and divorced after two years. Prior to the wedding (he-was-more-then-twice-her-age) he made clear he would have a young sexy wife, well he had alright, just she was off limits to him.
He learned his lesson! At-least-she-was-honest-about-it!

HRS

I’m afraid your morality fable about the lonely, rejected, radical factory-feminist adheres much too faithfully to backlash film and literature caricature to be believable.

Don’t tell me … let me guess. I suppose the poor, spurned bitch went out one night and made a soup out of her ex-lover’s family’s bunny and then went home to apply for a grant from a right-wing think-tank to write a book about how feminism has failed women.

BOAZ_David

‘… You could describe feminists as a social swear word, based on missed opportunity, absense of love, unfulfilled dreams, sense of rejection...and all this has been turned into a rage and hate of the things it desperately wanted.’

Sorry to disappoint you, mate, but the boot’s on the other foot. Feminists are reviled by both male and female conservatives because it is they (feminists) who are doing the rejecting; not the other way round. Feminists reject the long-established pattern of power distribution of men over women – and to conservatives this is a rejection of the very glue that they perceive holds society together. This falls under much the same area of social psychology that drives the fear and loathing held by conservatives for trade unionists, environmentalists, human-rights activists and liberal-minded parenting and teaching methods – each of which challenges one or more of the pillars of the dominator social system (rich over poor, men over women, adults over children and humans over nature).

R0bert

I haven’t been back to this forum for a few days, so a rather belated reply…

I take your point about how the home is considered the woman’s domain, and that this could be a reason why women may feature more prominently as perpetrators of violence in the home (especially against children) than in the wider community. That is a good point and does kind of validate my belief (and that of much feminist rhetoric) that gender violence committed by a small portion of men in the wider society is an expression of power distribution rather than an innate male tendency towards violence or misogyny.

On another point, I read some of Patricia Pearson’s book many years ago – but didn’t finish it. Although she makes very valid arguments about women’s capacity for violence being at odds with society’s sentimentalising of women as ladylike and helpless, she falls into the false trap of doing that very nineties thing of creating a fictitious feminist mafia that is supposedly committed to keeping all this from the public.

Also, similar to Christina Hoff Sommers, Pearson has had the ‘feminist’ label attached to her, despite being decidedly unfeminist in her viewpoints. All the feminists I’ve known are in the business of challenging gender stereotypes, not maintaining them. This is why, as a feminist, I fully believe that men should be in a position to seek help and protection against domestic violence, without fear of being disbelieved, despised or laughed at.

You might be interested in a book called ‘The Chalice and the Blade’ by Riane Eisler – who makes some sound archaeological arguments about how the institutionalisation of violence has evolved over the last 6000 years. She is the best example I’ve encountered of a feminist writer who can make a sound condemnation of gender-based violence without either demonising men or sentimentalising women.

MLK, talk about reading from a brochure. I bet your bedroom is just littered with feminist propaganda and bits of the manifesto outlining how women deserve to rule by right. I'm all for equality but, if you want to rule, you are going to have to earn the privilege and accept the responsibility as an individual. Not as a victim class with a head full of socialist theory pulled from the communist dust bin.

MLK
I can understand the feminist perspective. The oppression of women in this country is just so great.

There is the situation where a man could call a women “luv”, where a man could actually put “dear” at the start of a letter, or a husband could even put his arm around his wife, call her “luv” and attempt to give her a kiss.

I can understand why only 0.6% of abused women have an actual physical injury, but the oppression and abuse of women in this country is just so great

HRS

Never belonged to a womens group.

Robert

Nonsense.

MLK, welcome back. As you can see you were missed :)

I'll try and get hold of a copy of ‘The Chalice and the Blade’.

I did a hunt around some time ago and didn't find anything serious rebutting the claim regarding Pearson being a feminist writer but I take your point.

I'm not convinced that "feminist mafia that is supposedly committed to keeping all this from the public" is fictitious. There has been a fairly concerted attempt by some to misrepresent the data (even if they thought they have just cause).

Reading articles by researchers who have been involved in testing the genderisation of DV provides plenty of examples of clear cut intimidation and threats to try and silence a number of those researchers. Maurie Straus has written a very interesting piece on that topic but I can't locate it at the moment.

I don't think the tactics are represenative of most feminists and I suspect that very few feminists actually realise that the rates of physical violence are very similar. The lie has become so pervasive that most assume any claims to the contrary are woman hating lies.

"This is why, as a feminist, I fully believe that men should be in a position to seek help and protection against domestic violence, without fear of being disbelieved, despised or laughed at." - spot on.

R0bert

I've been looking for the Straus article I mentioned earlier (not found yet) but did find (or revisit) other materials.

One item was a summary page. I don't know the agenda or credibity of the author but the items which I was familiar with appeared to be fairly represented so my impression is that the summary is worth considering.

http://johnhamel.net/family_v/fam_v_research/fam_v_res_pdf/briefsumgeninclresearch.pdf

I found an interesting paper at http://www.law.ku.edu/journal/articles/v12n2/detschelt.pdf - I didn't always like the authors phrasing but on balance a helpful coverage of the issue.

A paper discussing criticism of CTS (Conflict Tactics Scales) http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CTS4.pdf I've not read much of this yet but it may be useful to understand the strength and weaknesses of CTS.

An article by Erin Pizzey which touches on abuse from extremist gender feminists. Not a neutral site unfortunately so take it as you find it. http://www.fathersforlife.org/pizzey/failfamt.htm

The site will annoy some but there are interesting resources at http://www.mediaradar.org/index.php .
"R.A.D.A.R. – Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting – is a non-profit, non-partisan organization of men and women working to improve the effectiveness of our nation's approach to solving domestic violence. "

R0ber

R0bert

Hope it’s not too late to respond here. Thanks for the links and I'll certainly try to read them. If you don't mind, however, I'll pass on Erin Pizzey, though. I can't bear the woman!

Having said that, here is one of several links that I found, which criticises Murray Straus’ CTS research in particular, and CTS in general:

‘The Myth of Sexual Symmetry in Marital Violence’, R. Dobash, R. E. Dobash, M. Wilson and M. Daly
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:H-8Qjl6SsSkJ:psych.mcmaster.ca/dalywilson/sexual_symmetry_myth.pdf+The+myth+of+Sexual+Symmetry+in+Marital+Violence+Dobash+Wilson+Daly&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=au

There is a section on p. 9 of the above article, which describes the findings of a research team who has worked with Straus at other times (Gelles and Harrop, 1991). They used CTS to do a survey on step-parent versus birth parent child abuse. In most countries statistics indicate that step-parents are much more likely to commit fatal or sub-lethal violence on children than are birth parents, by up to as much as 100:1. However, using the CTS method, Gelles and Harrop were unable to detect any difference in self-reports of violence by step-parents or birth parents.

If CTS is able to create a false symmetry between step-parent and birth-parent child abuse, then how accurate can it be in determining domestic violence by gender? I know I go on a bit about anti-feminism, but I suspect that CTS research has been allowed to continue on well after it's been largely discredited because the anti-feminism lobby has been so powerful over the last two decades.

MLK

"In most countries statistics indicate that step-parents are much more likely to commit fatal or sub-lethal violence on children than are birth parents, by up to as much as 100:1."

That does not gell with what I've seen of the Substantiated abuse and neglect stats (although they tend to dodge the issue of who did the abuse by talking in terms of family type) nor with the child death studies I've seen.

From the Abused Child Trust website http://www.abusedchildtrust.com.au/facts.htm
- ** -
Who perpetrates child abuse?
- 94% of abused children in Queensland are harmed by someone they know and trust.
- 85% of abused children in Queensland are harmed by their natural parent.

Family types involved in substantiated abuse and neglect
27% two parent (natural families)
23% two parent (other families)
37% single female parent families
5% single male parent families
- ** -
Single parent families are a significantly proportionally higher risk than either the two parent (natural or step). Note I'm a single male parent, the rate for my type of household is second worst on the list.

From one of the NSW Child Death Review Team reports http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/public-health/health-promotion/injury-prevention/at-risk-groups/cdrt-report.pdf (page 78)
- ** -
The seven fatal abuse deaths were caused by assault involving beating, burning, suffocation, shaking and battering of the children while being cared for by their mother and father (n=3) or their mother and her boyfriend (n=3). One child was being cared for by a paternal cousin and his partner. One of the fatal incidents involved the death of two brothers and their mother were murdered by their father.

Eleven deaths were suspicious of abuse and neglect but not clearly the result of abuse or neglect.
These deaths included:
- sleep incidents (n=7)
- drowning (n=1)
- strangulation (n=1)
- choking (n=1)
- suffocation (n=1).
In all of these 11 suspicious deaths, the carers at the time of death were the child’s parent(s)(n=10) or a step-parent (n=1, a step-father)
- ** -
I'll provide additional comment in a follow up post.

R0bert

It is important when you look at the figures that you also have the socio-economic backgrounds of figures and facts.

This would then relate it back to non-genderisation but deal with importance of dealing with backgrounds, family history, traditions/beliefs and other important factors that also cause physical/emotional abuse, sexual molestation, rage abuse and neglect of all basics of normal human growth.

Another paper now removed from the site had an interesting table. I’ve posted stats from it previously. Sorry about the formatting, I don't know how to get OLO to let me lay a table out. There are also entries for non family suspects but they have limited relevance to this discussion.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3268#5666
Table 4.3 (page 63) Suspect’s relationship to child by fatal assault group.

Suspects | Non-Accidental injury | Mental illness | Family breakdown |Teenagers | Total
Biological mother only | 3 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 7
Biological father only | 6 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 11
Mother and father | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3
Mother and male de facto | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2
Male de facto only | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 4
Foster mother | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1
Male relative | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1

My impression is that step fathers are overepresented in child sexual abuse but in other aspects of child abuse the difference is not overly significant.

CTS is being refined, it has weaknesses but it would appear to be a far more reliable instrument than the "make the rules to suit the outcome you want" approach used by those doing advocacy for the myth that males are responsible for the overwhelming majority of DV and child abuse. I've yet to see one of those detailing the flaws of CTS making any effort to point out the flaws in the alternatives.

I take your point about Erin, you may not like Radar much either. I'm not much of a fan of the style but they do reference some good material.

R0bert

MLK,
It is very difficult to understand how there is so much gender violence, when the greatest problem that couples are reporting, is not having enough time to spend with each other, and the least likely problem is violence.

I think most of the gender violence and mistreatment of a gender is occurring in feminist literature.

Manipulative people are everywhere and just as there will be false accusations of rape for example does not take away from the majority that are real.
Is this a case of because there is a relationship (marriage/defacto etc) it is ok?
Regardless of what 'Sri' did, does not give Frank the right to slap her, hit her or whatever, and vice-versa.

The property issue is something else, most men do 'pay' for the homes their families live in, so when they abuse you, does that mean you have to get out and have no rights, even though you are not the one who used violence?
The laws are changing because too many people and this includes children the vast majority of the time, are left in 'shelters' or 'temporary accomodation-that is either long term in the end in cramped conditions wherever there's a space or from one short term to another, providing no stability or support, especially after a traumatic event, this is not hte way it should be. Bugger who paid for it, if that's his angsts, then perhaps he was hte one holding such things above her head?

So so wrong to even excuse any part of his treatment after the fact, ever heard of divorce moron? Look she sounds purely manipulative, but then again, she is not the one telling the story is she? Her real name is different so no chance to check that out is there. I got told plenty of stories about how i took money, how i was kicked out for being 'lazy', etc....except, for two years i was kept locked in a house, beaten raped and barred from seeing my son, 8yrs later it still hurts to have the criminal blame the victim for their problems. Aside from the stories being untrue, it was just an excuse, a chance to excuse and get sympathy before everyone found out the truth, to which i have some proof, but that's also the trick of such viloent individuals, controlling individuals, the one's who value...property over life.

go-mum!
As I have spend decades involved in Family Court litigation I am too well aware that there are problems on both side of the fence, so to say, however, there are many manipulative women who use Family Law provisions to get as much as they can by suing all kind of false claims of violence, etc. Then the real victims of violence and abuse are often failing to receive appropriate attention. Whatever your own personal experiences might have been you ought not then take it that for this every man deserved to be robbed of their property that belonged to him before a marriage eventuated!
Personally, I view that when a woman marries she should be entitled to half of the wealth created during the marriage, and so including her maintenance to a family home. Many a man has been wrongly accused of child abuse, violence, aggressiveness because it is so easy to succeed in the Courts using those allegations. It has simply totally gone out of hand.
Intervention orders were intended to protect a person from domestic violence and abuse but we now find that people are using them even against a landlord merely seeking payment of the rent, etc.
My wife is always telling me that I am lazy. Well in her view I am, but it doesn’t mean I am. Some days I renovate 12 hours in a day and other times merely a few hours, but my wife views less then 8 hours is lazy. Also, to her I am wasting time writing books, as I would do better just to do renovating. As my wife always makes clear she isn’t interested with what I have done but rather what I haven done yet. When there was damage due to tree roots of the neighbour I ended up having to use a slash-hammer breaking up 6 tons of concrete and having to dig trenches about 1½ metres deep and later paving the lot. To my wife it is finished, so she argues, I should have done “whatever” that has not been done.
Continued...

I rebuild the entire kitchen, even opening up walls and replacing walls, etc, but to my wife when it is finished she only pursues what hasn’t been done. As I explained to her many times, she can list what she wants to have done but even then she complaints that even so I did what was on the list she wanted something else done that was not on the list and she hadn’t told me either. Now, that is part of marriage!
Some take the position that what my wife does is using abuse, but to me that is how she is. It might not be pleasant at times, and I explain that often to her but she simply has that habit.
While violence should “never” be part of a marriage, and at least my wife and I have no such issues, too often “verbal abuse” is taken any kind of criticism, regardless if this is really part of a marriage.
People should understand that if there were never conflicts in a marriage then you would be living past each other, not with each other.
Then again, my second (ex) wife held a butcher knife to my throat when I wanted to leave with my little daughter (not her child) in presence of the other children, even so we were long separated. (Later she pleaded guilty to assault- when the kids reported it to the police). So I know from various experiences what is going on.
Whatever you have been through I can safely state I have gone more then likely through worse. Yet, I still can look at matters in a balanced manner. And, this is what I suggest you try to do as it appears to me you are taking your personal experiences as to be the guiding standard how to deal with other men.

Go-mum,

I suppose manipulation, emotional and psychological and financial abuse are only classified as DV when committed by man?

This is hyprocrisy.

You demonstrate that abusers regardless of gender, can be very skilled at shifting the blame, so getting to the truth can be extremely difficult.

Trying to determine who is lying and who is telling the truth, this becomes more difficult when both genders in a relationship are abusing each other.

Is not name calling also a form of abuse, and you used the word 'moron' in describing Frank.

R0bert

I agree the ‘100-fold’ figure re step-parents and child abuse is a bit suss – which is why I prefaced it with the rather inadequate disclaimer of ‘up to’. The main source for this finding is Martin Daly and Margo Wilson’s book, ‘The Cinderella Effect’ (1997) which, like CTS, has also come under fire for its dubious methodology.

In referring to this figure I was trying to convey how data interpretations on one subject can be so widely contrasting as to be rendered virtually useless. (Ironically, these same 'violent stepfather' studies are sometimes used by the men’s movement to blame feminism for supposedly causing kids to grow up without their natural dads.)

MLK, agreed. And yes the claims about stepfathers have been used to attack the exclusion of fathers from their kids lives.
My point in posting the child abuse stats is that claims such as the scale of the overrepresentation of step parents in child abuse are made sometimes on the basis of little evidence (they are overrepresented but from what I can see not at the level most believe) and then without verification of those claims they are used to dismiss the results of other reseach.

I'd give more credibility to other research if I saw the critics of CTS doing some criticism of the strengths and weaknesses of the research methods used in that research. As someone once said they are like the person who comments on the speck in anothers eye while ignoring the plank in their own.

I hope you had a great weekend.
R0bert

Go-mum
Once we accept the fact that no gender has a monopoly on abusive behavior then the entire thrust of the feminist argument collapses like a pack of cards.

Also feminists like to talk constantly about male propensity to physical violence. Yes, there is a valid argument that men are more likely to be physically violent than women (about 75% / 25% according to ABS figures). But there it is universally accepted in the literature that women are way more likely to be borderline personality discorder (BPD) and this condition usually involves the sufferer severely emotionally abusing non-sufferers in domestic and personal relationships. BPD is almost a hidden disorder because it is more gender-related than physical violence (overwhemlingly female perpetrator and male or female victim) and just as damaging as the infliction of physical violence.