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.