Totally agree with the article though I don't quite believe this claim:

"In Australia, about 1 in 3 young women will experience sexual assault by the time they're 18."

In devastated remote aboriginal communities, yes, I can believe it. I can even believe that these communities experience even higher levels which probably feed into the average, however given the small population of these areas I still can't believe that broad statistic is accurate.

I can believe it's shamefully high, but not quite that high.

I think women maree crabbe are the problem other women need to address and solve among themselves first.

In this article maree has treated other women as mindless robots whom cant think and act for their own interests either on their own or as a group of women...and somehow got a genetic mishap that makes them slaves to their people in their dependent environment...a reasoning mind will become busy for months trying to get to the inner working of the mind of maree to come out with this work of fiction to editors of large circulating newspaper like age approving it...

for a start if the above was true then women as a group are well on their way to becoming extinct...but one look on the streets show that their generally no different to anyone else in crossing the streets, driving and interacting with others...

There is a long way between a teenage girl sitting in the class room paying attention to education and focused in establishing her self as a money earner with a regular profession and her own life...the real women...to finding herself at the back of the school toilets on her knees pleasing a guy...i mean at moments like this do her eyes cross and she froths at the mouth as well...i have never seen an 'unthinking' woman...so what is the process that inbetween these two...

and one has to keep in mind that she is 'intentionally and willing' participant...why...to increase her sexual experience, her 'pleasing skills', confirm her sex appeal and list goes on...anone denying this exists is more than likely creating fact to fit into a agenda for a predetermined outcome...

A better article would be one that addressed both sexes, women are critical of men and their sexual size and perfomance and like...which damaging in many ways to men...and violence now is so well covered and litigated that we dont need to push punishment of men to the extreme...

Sam

It is good to see that the article is not gender biased in any way, and mentions incidents such as the two teenage girls who murdered a taxi driver, and the 2 teenage girls who killed their friend by strangling her with wire and leaving the body in a waste bin etc.

The article mentions the way women's magazines treat women as sex objects with articles such as “1083 Sexy buys”, which suggests to women that they are sex objects, and these articles would be particularly unhealthy for young girls.

The figure of 1 in 3 has now reduced from the usual 1 in 4, and it is good to see that the article also mentions the dismissive attitude that so many women now seem to have towards the male gender, and the dismissive attitude that the media also has for the male gender.

So in all the article is balanced, and takes a broad and unbiased view of the situation.

Are you kidding?

this is 2007, not 1957. this is the time where women hold the trump cards, where independant powerful women rule the roost.

I know they do in my household.

I agree sexualising kids from a young age is not good, but it is better than in thew old days where young girls had to make far more mistakes to understand their sexuality. At least many of them have some grasp through being exposed to it at a young age. it can be argued that this gives them the wrong idea about what sex means, but lets be honest here, sex just isnt about a mummy and daddy loving eachother very much anymore, society has matured.

Things that used to be taboo arnt so much anymore. Women arnt just male appendiges anymore.

At least as a society it is becoming more accepted for people to express their sexualtiy and if it means a few flings or one offs etc, it is part of the learning curve.

Id rather know a girl has been there and made a few mistakes and learnt from it than not having made one mistake and forever wondering about whats on the other side of the fence and getting seven year itches.

Sex is not all about love, the sooner we all wake up about it the better.

A strong article and a couple of valid comments. I find it hard to believe one in three women are abused, though my advanced age may have shielded me from the reality. Any abuse is too much, so how can it be reduced? Single sex schools had/have much to recommend them: the presence of testosterone charged adolescent boys will always create problems in a co-ed environment. But, mothers and other older women seem to have abdicated their responsibility for teaching their daughters how to protect themselves. Which is the greater problem: to be thought and called “frigid” or to be known as “easy”?

Johntas,
I agree that it is always the fault of the boys.

And I actually think that teenage boys should be taken out of schools, because of the possibility that they could carry out abuse to the non-sexcharged teenage girls.

Any parent would know that teenage girls are definitely non-sexcharged and have no interest at all in sex.

quite right, hrs. in fact teenage girls should be taught by mature men whose reliability and moral rectitude are guaranteed by religious costume. i would volunteer for this task but a lifetime of depravity written on my face would not be masked by any cassock.

in reality, mixing with adolescent boys behind the bicycle shed is not the worst thing that can happen, though it can be bad enough. girls and women are used and abused by our commercial culture, and the only guard is the education parents and schools can provide.

a lobby group of concerned parents can bend state education ministers, and participation in p & c meetings can encourage extra-curricular guidance at local level. not every parent is a good parent, but a few good parents getting active can make a big difference in a neighborhood, and a nation.

Johntas - you may have noticed its always the men who express difficulty in believing the figures concerning sexual abuse or harrassement. If women starting writing in in droves expressing disbelief too then there might be reason to query them, I think.

You ask which is better - to be thought frigid or easy? Either are devastating. Remember, we are not talking mature men and women here, but kids. The force of peer pressure is something many forget - or maybe it, too has increased. But I have spoken to many older people who remember school days as horrible through peer pressure - being friendless and alone or excluded from the herd. Many of todays kids too are offspring of working parents, The Group assumes more importance for them.

As to what can be done? I think the first step is to admit that a problem exists - and not try to dismiss it because of our own agendas. Nor to minimise it. Adolescent suicide figures are extremely high, along with self-harming behaviours: all part of the same problem. One thing I have been advocating for a long time is more community involvement with High Schools. With the loss of the extended family dynamic (and the reasons aren't of interest right now, simply the fact)kids are missing out on adult influence in their lives - apart from "authority figures" like teacher and, all too often the police.

Volunteer programmes utilising the community more are, I would assert, actually a necessity in some cases. Especially for those from dysfunctional families who recieve no guidance at all.

Re stats on sexual assault by age 18, you might want to have a look here: http://www.aifs.gov.au/acssa/statistics.html Perhaps the most interesting stat is that only about 1 assault in 7 is reported. Depending on how you define "sexual assault", 30% is definitely justifiable.

HRS says "Any parent would know that teenage girls are definitely non-sexcharged and have no interest at all in sex." So all those posters of pretty boy-bands on teenage girls bedroom walls have nothing to do with sex?

Surprise surprise that the pervert (sorry porn industry) in Canberra is giving their backing to the Greens in the upcoming election. I wonder if they are helping out financially. Maybe you might know CJ. A great deal of publicity has been given in regards to the funding of the coalition from the Exclusive Brethren. Don't hold your breath for the ABC/SBS to be running to much re the relationship between Greens and Eros.

Johnj - HRS was being facetious. He's attacking the article for being harsh on men, which I don't think is all that justified.

To HRS and others of his ilk who are agitating for more men's rights - I say, fair enough.

But to do it through attacking things focused on women's rights isn't the way to go about it. It just makes you look hostile and angry.

I agree that perhaps this article overemphasises the severity of the situation, but perhaps, not as much as you think.

And the end fact of the matter is that there is a degrading sexual attitude toward women, any level of sexual assault is too high, and women's rights are important as well. As I see it, these three things are pretty self evident.

When an article comes along lamenting this situation, I can see some merit in questioning the level of accuracy, but to attack it outright on the basis of improving men's rights just doesn't seem like a constructive course of action at all. In fact, I think it's very counterproductive in terms of the image of those pushing for men's rights.

Well said, TRTL. You've expressed my own ideas more succinctly than I would have - and far more diplomatically!

[[[[If we want to prevent sexual assault, we need to address attitudes that deny the full humanity of women..]]]]
Rather, we need to tell people that if they want sex, they should marry the person they have in mind. Anything short of this is using the other person.
No-one has a right to another's body unless he/she has given his/her life to that person in total commitment. Anything short of this is necessarily lacking respect for that person.
Anyone who covers the event with 'mutual consent', is kidding themselves.
.
.
.
.
[[[We - parents, friends, neighbours,..leaders - need to equip them with the conceptual frameworks ...to have fantastic relationships...]]]]
Eh.......no thanks. We have the results of your conceptual framework. Now let's try the conceptual framework of the one who made us. Here it is: "He that fornicates sins against his own body" 1 Cor 6:18.

Now why does one sin against his own body when he/she fornicates? Simple. When you fornicate, you give of yourself into a union void of assurance. Like spitting into the wind, only worse.
.
.
.
.
[[[[To think and act and speak as though we are all worthy of the utmost respect as human beings might also be a way of capturing the imagination of the boys who are trying to "get a bit" and the girls who are "putting out" for them.]]]]
The word "utmost", is an ultimate. You cannot have a partial, temporary, ultimate.
The only form of utmost respect when it comes to sex, is therefore the ultimate form of respect between man and woman: marriage.
If he/she is worth having intercourse with, then he/she is worth marrying. If you don't think he/she is worth marrying, then you necessarily hold him/her in some degree of contempt.
At the very least, you lack love toward him/her.

No-one is denying that sexual intercourse occurs often as a natural result of petting. I am not condemning such people, or such events. We are all human.
What I am condemning, however, is the teaching that promiscuous behaviour is legitimised by "consent".

TurnRightTurnLeft, I'll second CJ's post. Thanks.

I've been wondering what definition of sexual assault is used to arrive at the stated figure. At a guess the lower end could be anywhere from being made to feel uncomfortable sexually through to a physical assault. Is the prevelance of males doubting the figure noted earlier because males generally have different perceptions about what constitutes assault to those generally held by women.

When I read the term sexual assault I assume a physical assault of a sexual nature - how do others perceive this?

From the material referenced in an earlier post http://www.aifs.gov.au/acssa/statistics.html

"Since the age of 15, 32.5% of women have experienced inappropriate comments about their body or sex life, compared to 11.7% of men. 25.1% of women experienced unwanted sexual touching copared to 9.9% of men."

I'm wondering if men have been desensitised to "inappropriate comments about their body or sex life" to a greater degree than women. I'd be very surprised if only 11.7% of men had experienced such comments on the other hand it's easy to believe that we are subject to "unwanted sexual touching" at a much lower rate than women.

Mostly I like the article, there is food for thought in there and as far as I can tell it's not so much about the acts but the attitudes towards one another.

The author may focus on "degrading attitudes towards women" without attention to "degrading attitudes towards men" but that does not invalidate all of the message. She makes the point "We need to reclaim a sense of the preciousness of all people, women and men" which should be at the core of the issue.

R0bert

A 13yr old girl is not a woman.

Everyone and everything is objectified in a world dictated by material consciousness. Men are sexually objectified, in that subtle, veiled, plausibly deniable way in which women excel. Following traits = sexy man... caring, good with kids, tall, handsome, rich, powerful, athletic, can cook, clean, wash up, do laundry, plus the usual old fashioned female cheavenistic characterisations of masuclinity. Reducing men to mere utility value of women. Same crap, different bucket.

Chicken or egg stuff.

Its degrading to women to suggest that they are somehow inferior, in need of special consideration and oversight, lest they do something silly to themselves.

A bill is currently before NSW parliament which expands the definition of rape/sexual assualt. A woman under the influence of drugs (like alchohol) cannot give consent, thus a man who has apparent consensual sex is a rapist. BUT, if the man is also intoxicated, that is no defence, even if the woman is not, and he HAS NOT been raped. A classic example of reducing womens power, saying they cannot act independently and engage us on EQUAL terms. They need special protections of a flagrantly sexist bias. Denied of course.

Biggest pervuyors of female social stigma are FEMALES. Men dont give a rats about sexually active or 'easy' women, in fact WE LOVE 'EM. Its women who denegrate their 'slutty' or 'frigid' cohorts. 'Sluts' devalue the MANipulation power of sex, which women tend to trade on.

The most disempowering and perpetuating thing women can do is to forever BLAME men.

Until you account for yourselves and take the 50+% of the responsibility for the shape of society and gender relations, you will merely serve to make things worse... for yourselves.

Its getting to the point where many males are learning not to care anymore. And in a disgustingly pervertyed manner, this case stands as painful evidence of uncaring taken to disdain. Truely sad.

I agree with the author. The statistics she quotes does not surprise me and unlike commentators, I would tend to believe they are true. Not many girls would have the courage to report such crimes, not surprising given the pathetic slap on the wrists those teen aged monsters received for abusing a young lady.

One not only has to look at the media in all its forms and the message it perpetrates but also the so-called fashion, the majority of which is designed by men. This fashion does nothing but sexualises and disrespects women of all ages and in a sense rapes them again, by turning young ladies into ladies who do acts of hoares of the worst kind.

Yes women do need to take control of our own lives and destinations, but by jingo's there's a war of epic proportions to support and encourage young women to stay strong and not be abused, disrespected and assaulted. Women are assaulted by the media, male societal opinion, legal opinion and general degradation of values that taught respect to all including the elderly, women and to each other. No wonder everyone is out for themselves.

Fellow sisters we need to unite behind our young ladies and start taking the charge to reclaim their lives from veneral disease, teenage pregnancy and consequential abject poverty. we have to encourage these girls to start saying if the guys would like to be their boyfriend then the boyfriend has to earn the right for the young lady to be his girlfriend. make it tough for the them to get you, be downright picky - that way the guys just might smarten up the act, and not be such selfish, selfcentred Neanderthals

The publication of FBI profiler Roy Hazlewood and internationally renowned forensic psychologist Park Dietz's work "Detective Magazines, Pornography for the Sexual Sadist?" really impressed the profitable pornography industry with the idea that mixing sex and sadistic violence in pornography magazines was a very dangerous thing to do.

Hazlewood and Dietz were able to prove a link between the bizarre fictional stories presented in this magazine genre which featured sadism and bondage of women, to actual acts performed on abducted young women by serial sexual predators.

Non violent sex became the industry standard where sex was depicted as consensual, friendly and fun. it is interesting that this industry, constantly attacked by women's groups, does actually display social responsibility.

It is the movie making studios which refuse to acknowledge this. What is worse is that on screen sexual violence against women is now more realistic and graphic than anything the Detective magazines ever dreamed up. "Action" movies (read violent movies) suggest to their audience (young men) that sexual violence and sadism is fun.

Many movies today show women being murdered with "over the shoulder" camera angles which present the victim from the killers point of view and can hear him taunt his victim. We see the naked woman screaming for mercy as the knife goes in.

The FBI profilers claim that serial killers are increasing and that there are now 50 "working" serial killers in the USA today.

Is it any wonder why?

"And the end fact of the matter is that there is a degrading sexual attitude toward women"

So said TRTL.

We have had the scriptural view from Liberty.. and rightly so. But there is more.

Perhaps we are the victims of a degraded attitude toward sex generally? It has been reduced to a social/physical convenience.. a fleeting pleasure, a 'toy'....in fact speaking of 'toys' the sex industry is characterized by a proliferation of 'toys' to aid the fleeting experience.

In other words, the connection between sex and marriage, the secure, mutually responsible, mutually upbuilding context where you can have as much as you like... without limit apart from agreement with each other.. has been replaced by the fast and the furious, the one nighter, the 'mutual consent' for a moment of impersonal, pleasure.

I think that reducing humans of either gender to the debased level of a 'pleasure machine' is degrading.

We can be so thick headed, we just don't see it, nor get it...that our sexual capabilities and desires are really quite potentially dangerous. They can propogate our species and enrich our lives ....

OR....

mis-used: they can destroy us.

The tragedy to me, is that there are many out there, such as the 'EROS' foundation..the GREENS.. the DEMOCRATS...who simply seek to capitalize on the promiscuity, and try to gain political capital out of degradation, by re-branding it as 'choice'....simply to either reassure themselves about their own sex drives, or make others feel ok about theirs, and that for political advantage.

If everyone unleashed their sex drives or 'different' views about the subject onto the rest of us... we would truly be in the soup.

Turnrightthenleft,
I haven't even written “men's rights” in any post, and I don't like being called an “ilk”, so maybe an apology should be forthcoming. I'm sure you will give an apology.

Zahira
“selfish, selfcentred Neanderthals “. Of course this is not abuse, because everyone knows that females are not abusive, and everyone knows that only males are abusive.

You seem a fine and progressive person, so I nominate you to go into schools, and tell all the boys that they are “selfish, selfcentered, Neanderthals”, and also tell them that they are abusive.

Boaz-David
They went through all this in the US, starting about 15 yrs ago. Girls were becoming sexually active at a young age, well below the age of consent.

Of course the knee jerk reaction was to blame boys. But then they found that the peer group pressure on the girl was actually coming from other girls, and from women's media.

If a girl was not having sex with someone, then she could be rejected by the other girls in her group for not being "grown up" enough.

It became the rage that a girl would wear a special colored bangle for each time she had oral sex, and girls would compare the number of bangles they had.

And also girl's and women's media was actively encouraging girls to have sex at a younger and younger age, and they didn't care if that age was below the age of consent. Girl's magazines were even selling the bangles.

The same trend is occurring in Australia, and of course the knee jerk reaction is to blame the boys. But I have never known feminists to ever get one thing right.

Hi HRS, I won't say that all females are not abusive, but what I will say that any male that treats a female as a sex object, an object for his own pleasure without consideration for her, or her rights to say NO, any male that enforces his will upon a young lady or a woman is exactly that - a self centered Neanderthal.

I would love to go into schools and teach the young men and women about treating each other with respect, dignity and honour. That lust is not love and that a relationship built on respect, dignity, honour and treating the partner the same as you would like to be treated yourself will be a long lasting relationship; not a relationship doomed to failure. Regrettably, many relationships are built on the dust of lust and soon collapse under the weight of the pressures of normal everyday life. Ideally, of course I would love to see young people enter into relationships the way God intended, but I understand that not all people share these same values, so the values of respect, dignity and honour are a start.

The figures on sexual assault are terrible and something definitely needs to be done.

However, reading the links would indicate that nearly all sexual assaults occur within the family group or by family friends. This statistic has not changed significantly in the last 30 years and should not be treated as a new phenomenon.

Likewise the objectifying of women has existed even in ancient times. Sex is a very powerful tool that is used by both men and women to achieve their ends.

Further more the author seems surprised by the difference in attitude between young men and women. That men are interested in the act and women in the relationship and that pain and angst is often the result should be no great revelation.

As there is no human culture that meets the author's ideal, I would suggest that a culture change though desirable is probably not possible. An improvement in the sexual education program of the children to beyond the purely biological, and more to what to expect in the "dating" environment would do more to enable the young girls to know what to expect and be able to make informed choices, and to have the confidence to report any cases of abuse.

Likewise the young men should be educated in the consequences of abuse both for the girls and their future. Trying to educate them to have similar emotional response as women is doomed to failure.

HRS.... the point well made...

>>And also girl's and women's media was actively encouraging girls to have sex at a younger and younger age, and they didn't care if that age was below the age of consent. Girl's magazines were even selling the bangles.<<

BINGGGGGO!

Exactly.

'The commodification of sex and youth'.....

How many times have you heard 'progressives' rant, rave, woffle, spew forth, dribble, drool..... blubber.. blabber...that:

"How dare anyone speak about CENSorship.. people should be freeeeee to look at what they like" etc etc.....

BOTTOM LINE.. "show me the money" and I'll show you what lies behind the 'progressive struggle for liberty'.....

Ask BOB BROWN to vote for the stopping of XXX rated PORN from ACT to the rest of Australia... will he ? notttt a chance.
Is their any simple coincidence between the reported support for the GREENS from the EROS foundation.. the representative group of all the 'adult' porn in Canberra ?

Is EROS donating to the GREENS ? I'll guarantee one thing..the EBs won't be.

HOW TO BECOME RICH.... my new book.

"In my book, I explore the simple process of identifying a 'traditional taboo' about sex.. then I show how this can be capitalized on, by making some outragious claims that are sure to generate controversy and LOTS of free publicity in the talkback and talking head circuit"

CONCLUSION.

-The book is a best seller.
-I'm now rich, driving my new Ferarri.
-The community is degraded, more degenerate, less confident, confused, and ashamed.... but do I care ? not a chance.. its all about the existential 'experience' of 'ME'.

POSTSCRIPT. My trohy wife bore me a daughter, she became a teen, and left home to work elsewhere. I decided one day on a business trip to hire a hooker. She arrived, knocked, I opened..and there she was.. my daughter.

One thing you rarely see in these type of discussions is the call for women to take responsibility for every and any relationship in which they enter.

There are enormous pressures on women to be swept off their feet in a romantic whirlwind, to proceed to their wedding day as the 'greatest day of their lives', to have children and to go on to live happily ever after. These pressures certainly do not come from men but from women. Everything from Jane Austen to Mills and Boon is promoting this as the goal of women's existence.

Because these pressures are so hard to resist women will often enter relationships where they are mistreated and abused. Sometimes they will allow themselves to be treated in a less than dignified way in order to achieve their ultimate fairytale. They often selectively ignore the signs in their partner that abuse is a possibility and when it happens they claim that they did not think it would turn out that way. Violence and abuse does not just happen overnight there are patterns to it.

If women want better relationships with men then they first of all have to take responsibility for entering the ones they have. No woman can be forced into a relationship in this day and age but they can be subjected to huge amounts of emotional blackmail from other women who often just need to co-opt more recruits in the campaign to cover up their own emotional dependence.

Men also often enter relationships for the wrong reason because there are many false pressures put on them by men. If you enter relationships for the wrong reason then you will probably end up in the wrong relationship. It does not help either young men or young women to blame anyone but themselves for the relationships they enter be it marriage, friendship or a one night stand.

The first step to solving the problem is to take responsibility for your part in the problem.

HRS, if your post isn't aimed at men's rights then it doesn't actually have any constructive goal at all, nor does any of the facetious criticism appear to be relevant.

So no, I've nothing to apologise for, if anything by rejecting men's rights as reason for your posts, I then fail to see any merit in them at all.

Whether you intend to or not, your defence of males and your criticism of simply blaming boys is indeed arguing for men's rights. I don't see why you're rejecting this, but if you are, then for crying out loud say what you do want instead of making snide comments about feminists.
Again, my point was that instead of hostile attacks, you should consider what it is you're in favour of.

'Ilk' is a term for people of a kind. Of someone's 'ilk' means people like you. There's no such thing as a singular 'ilk' so I couldn't have referred to you as one. Look it up.

Boaz. We agree that there's a degrading sexual attitude toward women, but I suspect there our similarity ends, except perhaps for a shared acknowledgment that respect for your fellow man and women lies at the core of the issue.

runner made a point about the exclusive brethren being investigated but not the porn industry. To that I'd say, it really depends if the porn industry took out advertisements flaunting Australian law by providing an inaccurate contact detail for who was placing the advertisement. That's illegal.
This alleged conduct by the EB was largely because the EB wanted to hide their role, since they've always said they don't believe in interfering in politics (which is why they don't vote). At least the porn industry aren't as hypocritical and they're not breaking the law.

boaz, I come back to your point about choice, and I reject it utterly. Choice is choice. Neither the Greens nor the Democrats have come out promoting pornography, but they have come out with choice, which isn't political mileage at all. They're allowing people to 'choose' for themselves. That is indeed, choice.

TRTL

'runner made a point about the exclusive brethren being investigated but not the porn industry. To that I'd say, it really depends if the porn industry took out advertisements flaunting Australian law by providing an inaccurate contact detail for who was placing the advertisement. That's illegal.' Can't disagree with you however compared to the sexual abuse of children this is a small matter. In aboriginal communities kids are being sexually abused from 3 years old and up and this is being fuelled by the porn industry that supports the tolerant Greens and Democrats. They are happy to have the support of this perverted industry despite the damage to many kids black and white. They pretend to be in favour of women's rights and happily support the sale of material that is totally demeaning to men and women.

Zahira
Of course no female has ever been known to be abusive.

Unfortunately lecturing boys or girls about respecting their bodies did not really solve any problems in the US, as the girls wanted to have sex to prove to other girls that they were “all grown up”, but they were too young to be having sex, and their bodies and minds were not meant for it.

The boys were simply too young to have sex or even to be interested in girls, so the girls were going to older boys, and were quite determined to be performing some type of sex to prove something to other girls in their peer group.

So talking about their bodies would likely have no affect at all.

Lecturing the media and particularly women's media would likely have more affect.

I have actually talked for some time with the editor of a major girl's magazine in Australia about what they were doing, to find that they had not one person on their staff who had any training in childhood development.

So maybe those magazines might be a place to start, before lecturing boy's on being “ selfish, selfcentered, Neanderthals”

Turnrightthenleft.
I was sure that you would give an apology.

You are non-prejudiced, and capable of considering a problem from many different perspectives. This helps you identify the cause of the problem, and you don't immediately believe that males are always the cause of every social problem. You don't immediately believe every statistic that is thrown at males, and you are willing to consider that females can also be implicated.

You are also considerate of other, and don't classify them as being an “ilk”.

So I was sure that you would give an apology.

HRS, I thank you for your kind words, but I still don't see what I'd need to apologise for - I don't see that saying you're standing up for mens rights is an accusation, and as far as I can tell, your posts can only be construed as either defending men (which in itself is an act of supporting mens rights, even if it is in relation to rebutting popular assumptions) or attacking the article as biased, from what I can tell it's both.

Your assertion is that the article is biased because it doesn't express concern for crimes against men. Is that about right?

The point I'm making is that there's nothing wrong with expressing concern over crimes against women and that is what the article is about.
I just don't think your attacks on it are warranted if the sole criticism is that it doesn't highlight crimes against men as well.

The real heart of the matter, and where we're likely to disagree, is to what extent sexual attitudes are harmful toward men and women. I tend to think they are more harmful toward women, though I concede in certain situations men do certainly cop the worse end.

But overall, I tend to think it's quite safe to say more women are raped by men and seeing as men are physically stronger and tend to be more highly represented in violent crime statistics, it's likely that more women are the recipient of physical (that's a key word here) abuse.
That can only be a product of sexual attitudes.

So yes, men mistreat women and women mistreat men. It's sad but true. But highlighting either side of this coin isn't a problem.

Even though it focuses on women, I don't see where this article says it's okay for women to abuse men.

Turnrightthenleft,
Most surveys on abuse do not adhere to the scientific method, and depend on who wants to exaggerate the most.

In a more scientific study conducted in a US college, they actually counted the number of times they saw a girl hit a boy, or a boy hit a girl. After 1 week they stopped the survey and started counseling the students, because there was too much hitting occurring, and about 95% of the time it was girls hitting boys.

I see the same every week when I take the children to a sports event, and there are hundreds of teenagers there, and I regularly see a girl slap, hit, or kick a boy because she thinks it is fun to do so.

But not once in 3 years have I ever seen a boy hit a girl.

The idea that there are high levels of sexual abuse from boys to girls is highly suspect. It is very common to see 1 – 2 girls with a larger group of boys, but those girls show no anxiety at all when being with all those boys.

I would think most “sexual abuse” is very minor, or is not abuse at all, but the girl becomes dissatisfied with the boy in some way, and then say that he is abusive.

I think cases of severe sexual abuse could be associated with mental illness. To say that it is male power over females is absurd, because there can be sexual abuse between females or between males.

The abduction of so many children from their fathers can lead to many social problem. A girl who has been abducted from her father is 7 times more likely to become pregnant as a teenager.

If a boy has been abducted from his father, he can do anything from taking drugs to joining gangs to underage sex.

The amount of sex and violence shown in the media is far too much, and it appears to be creeping down into children's media, and I would think that is not healthy for boys or girls.

HRS, you refer to "a more scientific study conducted in a US college", but I note that you don't provide a link, refer to a source, date, specific place or indeed anything that might indicate that any such study exists.

In my futile attempt to locate any reference to this study, I found plenty of research on violence and abuse amongst US college students.
Studies like this http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/14/94/13.pdf
or this http://starbulletin.com/2007/09/09/news/story04.html
or this http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/377942/domestic_violence_among_high_school.html

None of these studies remotely backs up your anecdotal claims. Indeed these studies all point to an unpleasantly high rate of abuse and violence against female students by male students.

I'd be pleased if you could point us in the direction of the study you refer to. Otherwise, I can't take it terribly seriously.

hope no one minds but trtl, I think hrs is essentially saying is an opinion/comment can arise from 'non prejudiced mulitple angle approach to problem'...and not necessarily male rights driven...though in this day of over-whelming female right driven propaganda causing societal shifts...i think increasing male rights to counterbalance is a good thing...

more importantly is the word 'aggressive'...its been used many times but never to describe the article or author maree crabbe...she is being aggressive as in 'instrumental agrressive'...a link which not good but has some references to a useful research http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggression

note 'aggression refers to behavior that is intended to cause harm or pain'...and here by maree intentionally excluding large relevant material components to this issue, and limiting to one perspective, and worse giving a 'victim' coloration to female component...in a major corporation news media is an extremely aggressive act...'harm' is intended to young males in the wider community by intended effect she desires...and some people calling some posts as 'aggressive' is a laugh in this perspective...a reasonable persons response is to increasingly get more aggressive towards activities like maree's to counteract its effects if one wants to achieve and maintain a balanced and sustainable society...ie acting on such 'aggressive' acts by elements wanting to attack/shift that balance in their favour...first step is to recognize it...ie 'aggressive'

eg aifs study 'only 1 in 7 reported' now a 'big lie'...it was used by 'office for women' to push all sorts including seeking laws/money...but abs(bureau statistics) since discredited studies with such findings on grounds its just not possible to statistically valid standard assess what person would 'not do'...no questionaire/study could make a person reliably state a fact when they have decided not to(not report)...and false data risk too high...ie risk of women falsely claiming they did not report...so was actually an very organized aggressive act

Sam
Ps~point in note aifs has acted as a feminist tool...particularly family court...its created by fla1975...and did not once to my knowledge do research/report the societal harm force seperating meaningful fatherchild relationship on request by mother the flc was doing in its common practice

Aggression should be the issue looked at between males and females and not just violence or physical abuse. Violence is only one type of aggression and men will use this type more than women because in general they are bigger and stronger and their 'success' rate will be higher when they use physical abuse. If women were bigger and stronger than men they would be the more violent sex.

Women are just as aggressive as men but in different ways. As Sam points out aggression is the intention to cause harm or pain and you can do this in many ways. There is verbal abuse, passive aggression, lies, destruction of property, bullying, harassment, vindictiveness, revenge, causing embarrassment, making a scene and so on. Women are more likely to use these methods to try and hurt men. These things can do just as much damage as a slap on the face.

If you want to dwell on the negative behaviour which destroys relationships between men and women then do it fairly and measure the level of aggression. Many feminist groups like to control the agenda of these types of debates and keep the focus solely on physical abuse because they do not want to have their aggression exposed for what it is.

John
The survey is no longer available on the web, and it is normal for any type of research that has findings that are contrary to feminist propaganda to not be widely published.

But the majority of abuse or domestic violence surveys (and the ones you referenced are typical) rely on opinion only, and that opinion can be highly biased. Nothing is actually measured or verified, and those surveys would not fit into the scientific method in any way.

However the following comes from US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where they also incorporated some quantifiable data.

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/5/941

Results. Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases. .......Regarding injury, men were more likely to inflict injury than were women

Similar results have been found elsewhere also. Domestic violence is either mutual, or women are the main perpetrators, while men commit more injury.

There is another survey I saw earlier this year where they surveyed 10,000 children, and from memory the children reported that 80% of the time their mother was the perpetrator, and I would think the children are less biased than either the mother or the father.

It is being also found that men are less likely to report the DV.

I can remember seeing recently at a large sports complex a girl continuously kicking a boy and hitting him on the head with her water bottle. The boy tried to fend her off for a while, but she wouldn't stop, so he then stood there with his arms folded and waited for her to finish kicking him and hitting him.

I can imagine the situation if the boy was continuously kicking and hitting the girl.

"All Boys Barred From Sports Complex fot Being Violent and Male"

runner: "In aboriginal communities kids are being sexually abused from 3 years old and up and this is being fuelled by the porn industry that supports the tolerant Greens and Democrats. They are happy to have the support of this perverted industry despite the damage to many kids black and white."

I don't suppose runner would like to support this scurrilous claim with something resembling evidence? I note that he hasn't been able to support his other porkies in this forum regarding the Greens and Democrats, so I expect that this will prove to be yet another case of defamatory lying by a Christian fundy. Isn't there something in the bible about bearing false witness?

I see that HRSkins is babbling away in his usual 'damaged male' persona. Like JohnJ, I'd like to see some reliable reference for the purported study he cited before I revise that assessment.

HRS said "The survey is no longer available on the web, and it is normal for any type of research that has findings that are contrary to feminist propaganda to not be widely published." Oh, how unfortunate HRS. You mean that not a single Men's Rights website had the foresight to preserve a copy? No wonder they're losing the fight with the feminists.

No question HRS, that some men are the victims of domestic violence, but the preponderence is committed against women. This study http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles1/nij/181867.txt , for example, found "nearly 25 percent of surveyed women and 7.5 percent of surveyed men said they were raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or date at some time in their lifetime".

As for 80% of child abuse being committed by women, perhaps you'd be so kind as to produce some evidence? This fact sheet http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/sheets/rs7/rs7.html suggests that fathers are responsible for 61% of physical abuse, compared to 36% for mothers. Not a good look for men, given that women are the primary carers for children in the vast majority of families. My apologies for using the Australian Institute of Family Studies data again. I wasn't aware (per Sam Said's comment) that it was a "feminist tool". Those feminists have become devilishly clever, haven't they?

This thread is beginning to develop a distinctive smell of martyrdom. I'm not sure I like all these men accepting the mantle of victimhood. It's all very..... unmanly.

CJ

Have you closed your ears to the newspapers last week reporting on the porn industries endorsement of Greens/Democrats policy? Just check out last weeks left wing Melbourne Age that reports 'The sex industry will support the Greens and the Australian Democrats in the Senate because of their policies to extend the federal X-classification code nationally. I am sure you are aware that this industry contributes to the child abuse in aboriginal and white communities or do you deliberately choose to ignore this fact?

johnj wrote ' I wasn't aware (per Sam Said's comment) that it was a "feminist tool". Those feminists have become devilishly clever, haven't they?'

so you seem like you dont agree...

john if i was grading your skills of investigative reasoning from observing our regional world...i would give you an 'f'...not for 'fantastic' but 'fail'...

for example lets say you were given the job of running aifs and its magazine 'family matters'...and you made sure there was no research/report of harm of force separating established meaningful fatherchild relationships(dont believe then go review all their past releases...might take you a few months)...and you also know family courts in about 50% completely force separate fatherchild on request by mother...and in rest of 50% usual in few hours every forthnight...some meaningful relationship that time gives...right...though since the amendment and relationship centres I dont know the current figures...

now which father would support the above...reasoning mind will say most would not...so a force drove 'fair outcome' law demands for 'justice' to take place to fail...and since mother were benefitting...a reasonable conclusion was an organized force has been shifting the balance towards women...right...and i hope you can build on this to see the connection with feminists and women like maree crabbe and unbalanced articles and faulty studies aifs reports...

so would you blame me for calling you a 'tool' or 'rouge-male for females'...as chief of aifs...

hope you get what im saying

Sam

Interesting to see runner's spin on facts.

The relevant Greens policy is:

(The Australian Greens will) "39. introduce a nationally consistent approach to the regulated sale of X-rated material"

Currently, it's perfectly legal for adults to own X-rated material anywhere in Australia (except lately in parts of the NT), but it's only legal to sell it in the ACT. Lots of people apparently like erotica in its various forms, so it's quite a large industry. Obviously, the Eros Foundation - being the industry body - supports the Greens proposed measure to rationalise and regulate this part of the adult sex industry.

runner: "I am sure you are aware that this industry contributes to the child abuse in aboriginal and white communities"

I'm aware that some people have lately attempted to stir up something of a moral panic about child abuse generally - and in the NT in particular - while seeking simplistic solutions to a complex problem that is evident at all levels of Australian society, and always has been.

I'm not aware of any reliable studies that establish a causal link between the availability to adults of pornography and the incidence and/or prevalence of child abuse. If you are, please provide references to them. Clearly, the vast majority of those Australians who legally purchase X-rated material are not child abusers.

Those who object to sexual freedom on religious, moral or ideological grounds are entitled to voice their objections to consensual sexual activities between adults, but they seem to all too frequently resort to spurious inferences and claims that the open expression of adult sexuality somehow leads to the abuse of children.

CJ Morgan,
I have looked through a number of dictionaries for the definition of a term you used to describe a male politician, to find it defined as being “vulgar” in every dictionary.

But everyone knows that women are never abusive, and you would be an example of that, made even more interesting by the fact that you were once a teacher.

JohnJ
If you want to read studies on abuse and domestic violence then there is an international list of over 200 studies here.
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

The overall results are that females are the perpetrators at the same rates as males, or at higher rates than males.

But of course the manly thing is to believe feminist propaganda, and believe that males are the perpetrators of domestic violence. That belief is now a major reason why in countries such as the US, 40% of children are now believed to be fatherless.

If you look through your factsheet on child abuse, you will also see that the majority of perpetrators are female. Males are the majority of perpetrators of sexual abuse of children, but in states such as QLD, sexual abuse of children only accounts for 5% of known or verified cases of child abuse.

But of course everyone knows that 30% of females will be sexually abused by the time they reach the age of 18.

The instance of seeing so many girls hitting or kicking boys I attribute to the education that girls are now receiving, that tells them that the only forms of violence or abuse are coming from males, and what they do to boys (and later men) is acceptable.

If you read the article, you will find that the author wants to continue or increase that education of girls.

CJ

You might not be aware of any studies that link the pervert industry with child abuse but try finding a sex offender in prison who is not or was not into pornography. One professor for 20 years in human behaviour wrote 'Porn increases the belief that women want to be raped and need to be raped. Porn increases the belief that children enjoy sex with adults. Viewers say, “I’ve seen the smiling children enjoying sex with adults on the internet or in magazines. I know it’s true - I have the pictures branded on my brain.” Deny the obvious CJ. It does not change the facts.

CJ Morgan, not sure if you noticed it but some time ago I posted links to research from the USA that is suggesting a correlation between access to porn and reductions in sexual assault in some age groups. I'll try and find that again and put it back up.

Their results are not conclusive but there was a fairly strong correlation between the states with a high internet takeup (and therefore easier access to porn) and reductions in rates of sexual assault committed by older teenager boys. Other crime rates were not showing similar downturns so it did not appear to be an artifact of increased policing.

That type of indicator will probably be treated with the same concern for facts as the lower teen pregnancy rates in countries with more liberal sexual attitudes compared to more "christain" countries has been treated by those so concerned with facts.

R0bert

I personally believe that there is a lot of evidence that indicates that pornography is very harmful to young men, and their attitudes towards sexuality. It totally disgusts me the amount of pornography that is available on the internet, and the ease at which a person can access it. For years it has been available at petrol stations and now more recently at places like Video Easy & Block Buster. What has happened to morals and family values, and why is it that we allow this toxic pollutant to surround us. If this continues there will be even more incident’s of rape and anti social behaviors. One of the things I find amusing is that pornography has been banned in areas of Australia by the Government, because of child hood abuse in Aboriginal communities. So what is the Government saying it’s not healthy for Aboriginal communities to view pornography, yet the Government does very little about the availability of pornography on the internet. I am aware of a free filter that can be downloaded at no cost. However what use is a filter that can be disabled by a 10year old, by simply re-installing windows or even just restoring the computer to an earlier time. I am a youth worker and have experienced this at the drop in centre that I work for. The Government should set up a server based internet filter through one of the big internet companies. This way all I would need to do is place a secure password, and the filter could do the rest. I personally believe that you should not be able to purchase adult material at the following locations: Video Easy, Block Buster, Retail shops, Petrol Stations etc. Also that it should only be available through Adult shops.

When did this thread become obsessed with pornography?

Why is abuse linked to this? I have seen many "studies" and while it may have an effect on practices, the link to encouraging abuse is tenuous.

Certain standards of what is acceptable are in place across the world, and generally govern what is available. Trying to change this would involve rolling back the internet and other media. The material is probably a result of the change in culture and not the cause of it.

While not a particular fan of the material, I always worry about calls for censorship. There is always the tendency to look at the past with rose tinted glasses and forget what used to happen under the surface because nobody reported it.

It is always tempting for those who are offended to launch a crusade, but rather pick a battle that both makes a diffence and can be won.

About 40 or 50 years ago rock and roll was blamed for misleading the youth and encouraging promiscuous behaviour, before that I believe Jazz was to blame.

Teenagers will be teenagers unless they are neutered.

TurnLeftThenRight,

Was shocked to scan through to-days comments and see that you remain recalcitrant: still no apologies for that disgraceful "ilk" denigration.

Though not from the north of England myself I know how seriously they take the matter of ilk there - you may even have heard a mournful lament which details the course of a young mans downfall when he is injudicious enough to wander alone and hatless on the moors where wild ilk used once to rampage and frolic as is their wont?

While once considering your posts balanced and thoughtful I will have to reassess this judgement if no apology is forthcoming. In this day and age for one adult person actually - and in print - to accuse another of being an ilk is a shameful renunciation of all the work being done throughout the world to stop prejudice. I am sure that all reasonable posters to OLO will be forced, despite the bitter taste and the now-scientifically proven side effects(I have read many treatises on Wikipedia on this but just can't bring URLs to mind right now), to ingest vast quantities of umbrage if you do not correct this vile injustice.

Sam said, you're welcome to judge my posts however you wish, it doesn't offend me. Debate should be able to encompass disagreement without descending to rancour. Calling me a "tool" or a "rouge male" just undermines your argument and makes you sound ill-humored and petty. Is name-calling really the best you can do?

Thanks HRS for your link. Plenty of food for thought there and I'll certainly admit that perhaps I've been too hasty to dismiss female violence. However, this doesn't seem to tally with criminal statistics, such as these http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2006/04_selected_offender_profiles.html Assaults by males were nearly 800 per 100,000, compared to females at 150 per 100,000.

Likewise, it doesn't tally with my own personal experience of violence. I've been bashed unconscious and then kicked in the head while on the ground. I've been mugged with a knife and I've been threatened with a rifle (later found out it wasn't loaded). And guess what? In every case the perpetrator has been a male (I won't dignify these scum by calling them men). The only woman who's ever laid a hand on me has been my mum, who stopped smacking me when I was about 4.

Johnj, there is often interesting material linked out of a DV advocacy site at http://www.mediaradar.org/ . They are not my prefered style in editorial approach but do sometimes reference some very good material (and some fairly bad stuff).

You might also look at substantiated child abuse stats http://www.abusedchildtrust.com.au/facts.htm#3 or http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/cws/cpa05-06/cpa05-06.pdf
Some relevant material around "Table 2.12: Substantiations, by type of family in which the child was residing, states and territories, 2005–06 page 31" I suspect that child abuse stats are less likely to be influenced by the social issues which impact on DV reporting.

You could also have a look at a summary of one Australian research project at http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/dom/heady99.htm or a US Department of Justice site with a summary of relevant material titled "Findings About Partner Violence From the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study" at http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/170018.pdf

If you are interested in a better coverage from someone who I believe to be a feminist writer try Patricia Pearson's "When She was Bad". Some deny that she is feminist but my impression is that she is feminist.

The studies which find that women commit violence against intimate partners at similar rates to the rates that men do generally use a methodology which some disagree with. I've read a number of the arguments against, some of the points were valid for early research and have been addressed in more recent research. Otherwise the main argument seems to be that the methodology does not factor in what those who don't like it believe about DV. From memory there is some material about this on the Radar site.

A couple of the rebuttals are at http://www.austdvclearinghouse.unsw.edu.au/topics/topics_pdf_files/Men_as_Victims.pdf and http://www.austdvclearinghouse.unsw.edu.au/RR_docs/seeking_safety.pdf

I've seen an article by Michael Flood attacking the Australian study I referenced earlier but can't locate it at the moment.

R0bert

Romany
I was also concerned when posters are suggesting that there should be greater concern for women, but then be totally dismissive of males by calling them “ilks”, or in the case of another poster in another forum, by calling them a vulgar term.

Kinda makes one feel that there could be hypocrisy occurring.

JohnJ
I personally have been in about 20 different countries and have been involved in many activities, but the only direct injury I have received from another male was when they accidentally stood on my finger in a football scrum and broke it, but was quite apologetic afterwards.

In this country, I have also never once seen a woman with a black eye or split lip, or even any sign of being physically assaulted.

The danger is that with all the “education“ of girls and women that the male is nearly always the perpetrator of abuse or domestic violence, young girls or women will begin to think that they can do whatever they like.

So in the future a woman or girl could be hitting or abusing a male, and the male will have to accept it, because everyone knows that abuse is only carried out by a male.

ilk is an offensive term?

I've not heard the reference. The reference I found was thus:

like: a kind of person; "We'll not see his like again"; "I can't tolerate people of his ilk"

If it is indeed a slur, then I wasn't aware of it and I apologise and rephrase the sentence as "and others of your like".

I didn't refer to him as an 'ilk' but others of 'his ilk' if that changes the context.

I've heard many people use the phrase and it hasn't been derogatory in any way, but if there is indeed a cultural reference that I'm not aware of then I retract it.

But I don't retract anything regarding the meaning of that post - I still don't see it as insulting and I don't see any issue with the discussion in relation to men's rights.

In relation to offensive rhetoric, I suggest you visit the flipping burgers thread to see what it looks like...

"but try finding a sex offender in prison who is not or was not into pornography. "

So Runner, where did all those priests go wrong? Are they all reading
porn, in between reading their bibles?

TurnLeftThenRight,

I suggest you read my post again, mate. Then try to guess where my tongue was placed as I was writing it.

Unless my reference to Wikipedia (the font of incontravertable evidence) the pub-song "On Ilkey Moor Bar T'at", and the habits of the fierce, moor dwelling ilk (close cousin of the unicorn, I believe) do not first alert you, that is.

HRS

"In this country, I have also never once seen a woman with a black eye or split lip, or even any sign of being physically assaulted."

Well, HRS consider yourself fortunate and one of the very rare ones who has never seen this. Regrettably, I've seen this and way too often. Also don't forget, assault is not only physical but also verbal, and this can be the most insidious abuse as there are no bruises to show the assault has been done. This type of assault destroys a woman's soul, spirit and confidence and it takes years to rebuild again. I have been subject to this type of assault and I still struggle some 7 years later.

"The danger is that with all the “education“ of girls and women that the male is nearly always the perpetrator of abuse or domestic violence, young girls or women will begin to think that they can do whatever they like." No person male or female can do what they like at all. The fact is HRS most of the time the male is the perpetrator of the assault, particularly serious assault.

"... because everyone knows that abuse is only carried out by a male." I don't think anyone has said that assault is exclusively a male crime, but the majority of assault upon women is done by men, and it is this acceptance of denigration of women via pornography, images in media etc that women have to fight against so that men and young males can develop a healthy and appropriate mindset about women and young ladies. i.e. a woman is not a piece of meat upon which a male can satisfy his sexual desires, but a woman is someone who is worthy of love, respect, appreciation etc etc etc.

TRTL - 'tis an ilk wind that blows nobody any good.

HRSkins - sometimes vulgar terms can be quite apposite. If you're somewhat coyly referring to my description of Kevin Andrews, let me assure you that, now that I think of it, I've thought similar things about you based on your comments here.

By the way, I'm a bloke - but unlike you, I'm quite happy about it :)

You make some good comments Shadow Minister. I have to agree that my post may have seemed obsessed with pornography, and its influence on young people. I don’t think some people really understand how many sick and degrading websites there are out there. To say that there are no real links between children/ adolescent viewing pornography and their sexual attitudes in my opinion would be like saying I don’t believe in gravity and jumping off a bridge.

To give the reader a better idea of what "sexually violent"
and "degrading" mean, examples of promotional material found on pornographic Web sites that citizens reported to MIM's www.obscenitycrimes.org Web site

Besides that empirical research suggests that when experimental subjects are exposed to repeated presentations of hardcore non-violent adult pornography over a six-week period, they:

Develop an increased callousness toward women; trivialize rape as a criminal offense; to some it was no longer a crime at all; Develop distorted perceptions about sexuality; Develop an appetite for more deviant, bizarre, or violent types of pornography (escalation); normal sex no longer seemed to "do the job;" Devalue the importance of monogamy and lack confidence in marriage as a lasting institution; and View non-monogamous relationships as normal and natural behavior.

In conclusion it does seem that the fight against the changing attitudes towards sexuality by young people is a battle that can not be won. However it is through voicing my opinion on sites like this one that we can have our opinion’s listed and challenge other people to think about things that they can do. At then I am being pro-active instead of not challenging the tide of abuse promoted by websites and the media in general.

Zahira
It is interesting that by their own accounts, a woman is more likely to be injured or abused in the workplace by another woman than by a man, and apparently there are higher rates of abuse in lesbian relationships than there are in heterosexual relationships.

The rates of mental illness amongst unmarried women are also twice the rates of married women, and the rates of physical illness amongst unmarried women are also higher, and their rates of poverty are also higher.

All this would have to be because there is so much abuse of women by men, as everyone knows that men carry out so much abuse of women.

A black eye can take many days or weeks to disappear, and the fact that I have never seen a school girl with a black eye is also quite odd, as 1 in 3 are being sexually assaulted.

I have been through a co-ed school system, and never once saw a girl with a black eye, split lip etc.

I now am going back to co-ed schools to pick up children, or attend school sports and functions, and amongst the 100's of girls I have seen, I have never once seen a girl with a black eye.

At most schools, girls marks are also remaining the same or gradually increasing, but the boys marks are gradually declining. If 1 in 3 girls were being sexually abused, or abused in some other way, then the girls marks would be declining. But they are not.

So although every knowns that 1 in 3 girls are being sexually assaulted, there does not appear to be much evidence of it at all.

And if someone says that 1 in 3 girls are being sexually assaulted, or says that women are being heavily abused, then everyone has to immediately agree, or it could be said that they are ant-female.

CJ. Morgan
Of course everyone should be making posts containing vulgar terms, and expressing vulgar thoughts. Thank God you are no longer a teacher.

HRS, if you've never seen a woman with a black eye then you are indeed fortunate. I don't see many around my suburb either but have seen them.

I used to date someone who worked with kids in a rougher area than where I live and from her accounts violence was a regular part of those kids lives either with themselves as victims or between parents. Some people live lives that are unthinkable to most of us and see no real way out.

As for a lack of black eyes suggesting that sexual assaults don't occur - I'm no expert on sexual assault but my understanding is that the eye was not normally the prefered body part for a sexual assault. I'd not expect the bruising from a sexual assault to be readily visible in public places.

Yes some writers appear to exagerate some things and underplay others and we do need to address the places where that occurs but the exageration you use hurts the cause of those who want to highlight the misrepresentation.

It might make you feel better but it does not in my view provide incentive for others to take claims about misrepresenation of gender violence seriously, if anything it detracts from that possibility.

R0bert

Ah yes Romany, I thought I detected a certain level of facetiousness, however when HRS genuinely appeared to think ilk was some kind of insult, I was somewhat thrown.

Having perused wikipedia, aside from the moor dwelling creatures, I may have inadvertently accused him of being a scottish clansman, a person who hails from an area of Hungary or likened him to a drummer from San Francisco or even a german discus thrower.

Still no insults though. Unless, HRS, you've got some kind of problem with the Scots...

Turnrightthanleft
One of the reasons why I have only been injured once by another male (and accidentally injured) is that I have not been dismissive of men, nor have I referred to them as being an “ilk” or a “Neanderthal”, or referred to them in vulgar terms.

But you can do that.

Consider what will eventually and inevitably happen to you, as being a part of your life’s education.

Robert
“women are more likely than men to throw something at their partners, as well as slap, kick, bite, punch and hit with an object. Men were more likely than women to strangle, choke, or beat up their partners”

Archer, J. (2002). “Sex differences in physically aggressive acts between heterosexual partners”

So if a male is more likely to beat up a woman, then counting the number of women with facial injuries would be a more scientific way of estimating the amount of abuse being carried out on women, than the unverifiable, non-quantifiable or subjective research that is normally carried out.

The basic fact that almost no women or girls can be seen with a black eye or facial injury does not equate with the majority of the research so often carried out.

A further scientific and also obvious way of establishing just how much abuse there is of girls would be to study their school marks and school attendance.

If there are 1 in 3 girls being sexually abused, (or abused in any other way), then this would obviously affect the school marks of girls right across the country, or there would be a decline in girl’s school attendance, or there would be a decline in the general health of girls.

But there has been no decline in girl’s marks, there has been no decline in girl’s school attendance, and any decline in their general health seems to be associated with the type of food being eaten and a lack of physical exercise.

So figures such as 1 in 3 girls being sexually abused are not just an exaggeration.

They are outright lies, and the author would know it.

Thanks R0bert for the links, and for your commonsense approach. I'm not sure about http://www.mediaradar.org, perhaps its a trifle too strident for my taste. I note that they prominently link to the Whitaker, Haileyesus, Swahn and Saltzman paper previously pointed out on this thread by HRS.

I notice a common denominator of many of the studies cited by Whitaker et al is that they rely on self-reporting by male and female subjects. I suspect (as suggested by one of the DV Clearing House reports) that females may overstate their own agression and understate their partner's and vice-versa. Mind you, my wife has just reminded me that she once flung a bowl of spaghetti at me (it missed). Perhaps these studies are paying too much attention to this sort of isolated incident and not enough to the systemic violence of dysfunctional relationships.

According to the Australian Institute of Criminology http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/ti90.pdf in "almost 4 out of 5 intimate-partner homicides, the perpetrator was a male and the victim a female....in a little over 1 in 5 incidents, the homicides were committed by a female against a male." Even in homosexual partner homicides the rate was 5 to 1 (male vs female). These figures correspond strikingly with the previous assault stats I quoted, where men were convicted of assault at 5 times the rate of women.

I simply can't square the criminal stats with the notion of equivalent female partner violence. I'm sorry, but it simply doesn't add up.

You've obviously led a sheltered life HRS if you've never encountered a victim of domestic violence.

TRTL, you'd better be careful, the Ilk Mafia are gunning for you.

HRS, you are focusing on the young ladies that are attending the school of either your children or perhaps grandchildren.

Thank goodness that the young people in your school area aren't subject (we hope) to abuse. But it depends on where you live. When I was going to school, a friend was daily physically flogged to the degree of extensive and severe bruising. There were quite a few girls that suffered the trauma of rape, assault and/or abuse either by boyfriends, acquaintances or parents. But like I said before, a black eye doesn't not necessarily mean that someone has not been assaulted/abused. There is emotional abuse also - the bruises are on the inside - and you can't see those. How do you know that the young ladies you are seeing aren't being abused? You just don't know, because even these kids will try to put up a good front and say everything is fine - when it isn't.

But one thing you need to remember is that just because at your nearby school the female students may not be abused, raped or assaulted does not mean it isn't happening on a regular basis to women in their late teens, young adulthood and even the more mature ladies.

HRS, I never referred you you as a neanderthal, and I honestly don't know how ilk can be seen as insulting.

If there's an insulting meaning behind the word, which I've always taken to mean 'people of like' then perhaps you can explain it so I can avoid unintentionally insulting people in future?

As it stands I've got no idea what's getting your back up and you seem awfully precious about it.

JohnJ,
It is very interesting that we are being told that there is no great difference between males and females, except that males abuse females.

You are saying that I have not seen a woman with a black eye because I have lived a sheltered life, but similar was found by Victoria Health. Out of all the women who claimed that they had been abused, only 0.6% were found to have an actual physical injury.

But you seem to know a lot about men and murder, so could you tell me the following.-

What percentage of men in Australia carry out murder each year, and is this percentage representative of all men in Australia, including yourself?

With all this abuse going on, should the murder rate be increasing, and if not, then why not?

I also hope that you reported to the police that the wife threw the plate at you, because you will need every bit of evidence you can get to keep contact with your children if she every decides to leave. Do not think that I am joking regards that.

Zahira,
If there are 1 in 3 girls at schools throughout the country being sexually abused, then it would be expected that the girls marks would be declining on a national basis

However they are not, and it is the boy’s marks that are declining.

So what is being said about the boys and the girls doesn’t seem to fit the actual situation.

Turnrightthenleft,
I knew that you would apologise for calling me an “ilk”, and I knew that Zahira would apologise for calling boys “Neanderthals”, and of course the ex-teacher will write a letter to a certain politician and apologise for calling him a vulgar term.

You are all doing this, because you are all so non-abusive.

If for some reason anybody wants to read more posts of a very similar ilk to the pithy pieces submitted by HRS, they could go to

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=6333

There's hundreds of posts there of indistinguishable ilk, in terms of writing style and fixation on certain subjects.

Mind you, I'm not seriously suggesting anybody bothers - this is just a heads-up :)

Actually HRS, what I said was, that if I had indeed insulted you then I withdraw the 'ilk' comment, but don't change the meaning of my post.

You've yet to be able to tell me what is indeed so insulting about 'ilk' so I can assure you, I remain quite unrepentant.

It would appear that others of my ilk remain quite unrepentant as well.

HRS, you ask "what percentage of men in Australia carry out murder each year?" If you'd followed my link, http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/ti90.pdf , you'd have found most of the answers to your questions. Of the 2,024 homicides committed in Australia, July 1989 to June 1996, 214 were committed by women. There are about 300 homicides committed per year in Australia, approximately 90% by men and 10% by women. That's a murder commission rate of about 2 per 100,000 men and 0.2 per 100,000 women.

In other words HRS, if you (or I) were unfortunate enough to be murdered, chances are 10 to 1 that it would be a male that did it. If you were murderd by a woman (a remote possibility) the likelihood is that it would be your intimate partner that did it. You also ask "is this percentage representative of all men in Australia, including yourself?" Well, not having murdered anyone lately, no. Mind you, suppose a particular group (eg Freemasons, railway enthusiasts, ping-pong players, ilks, etc) committed murders at ten times the rate of other citizens, it would be tempting to say "these ilks have a problem" wouldn't it?

You ask "With all this abuse going on, should the murder rate be increasing, and if not, then why not?" I'm afraid I fail to see your point. Is the abuse rate going up? Have you got any comparative data? The good news is that the homicide trend is downwards http://www.aic.gov.au/stats/crime/homicide.html , possibly a reflection of our increasing prosperity.

As for the state of my marriage, why would my wife leave a brilliant, thoughtful, sophisticated (and modest) chap such as myself? All jokes aside, I certainly concede that a lot of divorced men are deeply unhappy with the processes of the Family Court.

HRS,
"If there are 1 in 3 girls at schools throughout the country.....' Well not necessarily. For many children who are in difficult family circumstances, school is a means of escape and not only that the children in cases are expected to do well in their results regardless of whats going on outside. Having spoken to quite a few articulate children who are in very difficult home environment, they seek doing well at school means being able to have a good job and thus get out of home. School therefore is an escape for the home environment. . The kids then have no safe place to go. Why are the girls doing well, personally I think that this generation of women have realized that if they have to be self sufficient, and being dead honest as a woman of today I cannot depend upon my husband to provide all the income. What happens if he can't work for some reason, they it falls onto my shoulders. Secondly, having been divorced and literally left with nothing but the clothes I had on I am not going down that road to start all over again with no job, no home and no future. Women of all ages are realising that for their own security if the marriage fell apart - they would have to look out for themselves and the only way they could do that is via a good training and a good job - hence they have to do well at school.

"it is the boy’s marks that are declining" - sadly in some public schools it is not seen as "cool" for a boy to do well in his mark. He is activatly discouraged by his mates not to do well. The old tall poppy syndrome.

SO HRS Teen culture, adults culture, world culture, media culture is a confusing mish mash of values and now its a case of perhaps redefining a set of "Christian" based values upon which Australia is built; that all peoples would be happy to abide by and obviously have been able to contribute.

Turnrightthenleft
I haven’t called you an “ilk”, just Turnrighthanleft

My concerns are that nearly everything said about boys or men is now negative.

There is everything from males are “perpetrators of abuse”, through to men are “Cave men”, through to this article that males have “degrading attitudes towards women”, and now we have an “ilk” thrown in as well.

Nothing positive is said, but ironically nearly all such negative labels are coming from people who accuse males of being abusive and oppressors.

JohnJ
You could say “men are murderess”. You could also say ”99.998% of men are not murders”.

If you say “men are murderers”, you are now stereotyping yourself as being a murderer.

If you say “men are abusers” you are now stereotyping yourself as being an abuser.

But with one phone call, the police will come to your house. If there has been conflict between a husband and a wife, they will remove a husband or a wife, leaving only one adult to look after the children, and that is basically a PERMANENT ARRANGEMENT.

Because you have previously stereotyped yourself as being an “abuser”, you will be the person removed from your own house and your own children, regardless of the situation.

And that is why in countries such as the US, 40% of children are now fatherless, because the father has been previously stereotyped as being the abuser.

But there is a considerable amount of research to say that the abuse was either mutual, or the mother was the perpetrator the majority of the time.

In Australia we have a declining murder rate, but some are saying there is an epidemic of abuse.

The murder rate should follow the abuse rate, and I would suggest that the abuse rate has also been declining, and is actually quite low, which is another reason why I have never seen a woman with a black eye.

Either so much of this abuse is imaginary, or it is a part of stereotyping the father to be the abuser.

It is very convenient to have a male stereotyped as an abuser.

HRS, please let me make this clear:

I know you haven't called me an ilk. I called you 'of an ilk' because the phrase is neutral.

When you say things like "now we have an “ilk” thrown in as well" you imply that the term is insulting.

Unless you can explain some meanring I'm unaware of ILK ISN'T AN INSULT!

Phew. I don't like to use caps, but you really don't seem to be hearing, and the situation is in dire need of clarity.

Why have you been referring to ilk as if you've been insulted, if you can't come up with a term.

To reiterate, all I said was that I disagreed with the way you and your "ilk" (i.e. people of a similar nature, in this case, arguing on behalf of men) were approaching this issue.

So, to clarify again, what the hell is this 'ilk' meaning you're so damn concerned about? When did I say you called me an ilk? You can't call people a singular ilk.

If there is an insulting meaning here then I'd like to know what it is lest I inadvertently use it, but your repeated inability to define why it could possibly be insulting leaves me to conclude that you're playing some obtuse definition game aimed at either painting yourself as a victim of insults or trying to play an even more obtuse game of apologetics where you can have your opponents back down on certain points.
This back down has not occurred.

Again, if I'm wrong, kindly clarify what it is that is insulting about this term.

TLTR

This argument is starting to look like something Lewis Carroll would have written - except I'm fairly sure HRS has no idea of who Lewis Carroll was. Each time the word gets repeated I have these insane pictures in my mind of fantastical creatures thundering down hillsides shrieking their fearsome war-cries "An Ilk!. An Ilk!"

Look, you are wasting your angst here, mate. Don't you remember other threads where the dreaded Black Eye Theory was propounded for instance? Both a nursing sister and I went into lurid gynycological details of why it didn't stand up, abused women went into details, frustrated posters ripped out the tattered threads of pseudo-logic, stomped them into the ground, and shot the remains down in flames. Yet here it is again, arisen from its ashes in all its pristine ill-perceived glory - seemingly untouched by batteries of logic, explanation, argument, ridicule or shame.

Same thing is going to happen to the whole ilk thing. Resort to a dictionary having seemingly never occurred as a way of resolving misunderstanding, the word is firmly, illogically and irrevocably positioned as the direst of insults and so it will remain for evermore. I see someone else has used it on another thread - there'll probably be a gallop over there and a demand that the vile perpetrator retract it immediately too.

But lets give it one more shot.

HRS - PLEASE DEFINE THE WORD "ILK".

Dear Turnrightthenleft and Rommany,

I think the term ilk”, is just a dismissive term that is applied to someone, but you would probably know a lot more about it than I would.

But I do know that I have spent countless hours with countless males in a number of countries, and the only physical injury received, was when one broke my finger by accidentally standing on it in a football scrum.

How many times have you been abused by a male, and why?

Romany I might be in trouble then - I liked it so much I used it at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1289#22909
and to matters worse I adminit that "I don't use the Scottish clansman meaning".

The shame of it all

Now for my comment on the topic (not addressed to Romany)

Of course all this stuff about "Ilk's" is far more important than kids feeling pressure to perform sexual acts in circumstances that devalue either themselves or the person the sexual act is performed with. Far more important than child sexual abuse. Far more important
than the issues parents face dealing with childrens curiosity and need to learn about sex and sexuality whilst parents try to avoid sexualising children. Far more important than sexual assault or any of those other trivial issues which have risen out of the original article.

It is really worth continuing with to the exclusion of other matters.
(that last rant was tongue in cheek for anybody who missed it).

R0bert

Robert,
I tend to think that there are posters who have a very great preoccupation or desire for calling someone an ilk.

In the area of child sex abuse, I think there is very little in overall % terms.

In QLD, the number of child sex abuse cases were only 5% of the total cases of child abuse, but the other 95% is rarely spoken about.

The amount of sex abuse of girls would definitely not be 1 in 3, as girls school marks and school attendance is not declining.

However there would be far too much underage sex occurring, and many young people would not be emotionally or physically old enough to be having sex at the age where it is now apparently occurring.

However I attribute this primarily to the media, and in particular to women’s media, that attempts to sell girls more products, and they are attempting to do this by incorporating sex into the marketing.

Everything is “hot” new movie passes, or “sexy” new summer fashions etc, and this creates a compulsion to be having sex at a younger and younger age. Peer group pressure from other girls was also found to be a major factor in underage sex in the US.

This is not incorporated into boy’s media, because boy’s don’t have any media, and even programs such as “Big Brother” had a primarily girl audience, and the producers knew it.

HRS ( even though I once swore I'd never address a post to you directly again)

How many times have I been abused by a male? Whats that got to do with this? If you read other peoples posts when they are not directly addressed to you you'd have an idea from other threads, anyway.

But, just for a few minutes, why don't you try to forget about bogus statistics and what other disaffected adults with their own grievances say, and try to imagine how different reality is for a male and a female.

How many times have you walked past a building site? Can't remember? Well imagine that every time you walked past one people were yelling out "Show us yer tits, love" or even more intimate requests. Imagine riding in a crowded bus and having someone's erection pressed into the small of your back for the entire trip. Imagine going out with a same sex friend and having a steady procession of strangers interrupting and asking if they could join you? That'd be o.k., you reckon? Well imagine if, each time you declined you were called a moll, a slut, a dyke? Imagine what its like to walk down the street and have cars honk and slow down and shout obscenities at you.

Now, imagine you are only 14 years old.

That's what we should be addressing on this thread. And, right back before all the same old segues into domestic violence and pornography (which, admittedly are all peripheral issues to the main point) that was what some of us tried to talk about.

As to the "why"part of your question? Well that, my friend, is what I and my ilk are all trying to find out.

Robert,

you're right, of course and I am really glad that you want to pull the discussion back to where it belongs. I'm afraid I tend to give up too easily once certain people appear and just let them take the thread down the same old well-beaten paths.

But as I said originally, first we (and I mean we so-called adults)have to admit the problem exists. I know from personal experience not only that it does but how much a part of youth culture it is. And I think that we adults also have to bite the bullet and admit that its a problem pretty much of our making.

Yes, porno and media have a lot to do with it: but its not the kids who are making and producing this stuff. Its us. So while there are probably lots of great parents out there who do involve themselves in their kids lives and their kids friends, we have to face that there are many who do not...and take some responsibility.

I definitely believe we should all be more pro-active with our children's schools. But we can also clamour for more community involvement. Its a given that there are short-comings in the Education system (so lets not get side tracked by the public/private debate) but volunteers for remedial reading programmes, for mentoring, for presentations, acting, dancing or art coaching and for talks are always welcome.

Theres actually a lot that can be done to provide kids with a much wider and more holistic viewpoint as well as providing positive role models. It's one of my constant pleas both as a parent and a teacher. And I've seen what good it can do.

Rommany,
There was an interesting case in New York, where a woman claimed she had been abused by male workers when she walked past the 9/11 site. This made all the main newspapers in NY, with calls for those men to be sacked.

But when the matter was investigated, it was found that the only men working at the site were working in the subway areas, and none of them could see any member of the public. The woman then issued an apology.

So why have you been abused by a male, and is it true.

HRS, I've no doubt you can pull any number of incidents out of a hat to support your case.

Men represent around half the population. Of course there are going to be incidents where they have been unjustly treated at the hands of women.

On balance however, it's way, way out of proportion.

Several points here: while I support any moves to ensure legislation treats genders equally, I'd be opposed to any move to equate emotional or psychological abuse to physical. They're different issues with different approaches.
Psychologically abusing someone is bad, but beating them up is worse. You can't pretend they're the same thing.

Secondly, your claims that women are physically abusing men at an equal rate are foolhardy. Not only that, they're doing your cause damage. I, and others of my ilk, aren't likely to be convinced.

When I was numbering my senate preferences today, I noted a party with a title along the lines of 'equal parenting rights.'

I thought to myself 'are these the sensible types pushing for equal parenting rights under legislation, or do they just have an axe to grind with women?'

Your posts come across as the latter, because quite frankly, I don't think anybody here believes your anecdotes amount to a compelling case when weighed up against both common sense and statistics.

If memory serves me correctly Romany was actively promoting the play "Vagina Monologues" and in this play an older woman plies a young girl with alcohol and has sex with her.

Now if an older guy did this to a girl he would have been castrate, boiled in oil, tarred and feather, keel hauled. Interestingly the laws in NSW and Vic have recently been changed to make this a criminal offense (that is having sex with someone who is too drunk to give consent).

Now for some juicy bits, I have known heterosexual women who have told me about being plied with alcohol and end up having a lesbian affair.

I do have a lesbian friend who has told me about her behaviour where she and her friend would go out and target straight chicks. So I wonder how much of this sexual abuse of girls is by other girls?

Turnrightthenleft,
It seems that you have stopped calling me an “ilk”, and now you are calling me a female hater.

The only thing I have called you is Turnrightthenleft, so I wonder who is attempting to be abusive.

So now all the abuse of girls and women is not physical, but psychological.

But if it is psychological abuse, then it would definitely be expected that girl’s marks at school would be declining, and it would definitely be expected that women would be dieing at a younger age than men due to some type of stress.

However it is the boy’s marks that are declining, and men are dieing at a younger age than woman.

Apart from claims of being abused, there is no other evidence that wide scale abuse of women or girls is taking place in this country.

But it is very convenient to have males stereotyped as being abusers of women and their children.

HRS,
"If there are 1 in 3 girls at schools throughout the country.....' Well not necessarily. For many children who are in difficult family circumstances, school is a means of escape and not only that, the children in these cases are expected to do well in their results regardless of whats going on outside. Having spoken to quite a few articulate children who are in very difficult home environment, they see doing well at school means being able to have a good job and thus get out of home. School therefore is an escape from the home environment. Why are the girls doing well, personally I think that this generation of women have realized that they have to be self sufficient, and being dead honest as a woman of today I cannot depend upon my husband to provide all the income. What happens if he can't work for some reason, then it falls onto my shoulders. Secondly, having been divorced and literally left with nothing, but the clothes I had on, I am not going down that road to start all over again with no job, no home and no future. Women of all ages are realising that for their own security, if the marriage fell apart - they would have to look out for themselves and the only way they could do that is via a good training and a good job - hence they have to do well at school.

"it is the boy’s marks that are declining" - sadly in some public schools it is not seen as "cool" for a boy to do well in his marks. He is activatly discouraged by his mates not to do well. The old tall poppy syndrome.

SO HRS Teen culture, adults culture, world culture, media culture is a confusing mish mash of values, so perhaps Australia needs to redefine a set of Christian based values upon which Australia is built; that all peoples would be happy to abide by and obviously have been able to contribute, thereby enabling all people regards of race, religion etc etc to be respected.

HRS, I'm starting to see how you've developed this victim mentality.

The ilk argument has died, because you're the only one who thinks it's an insult. So you haven't actually been insulted on that score.

I didn't call you a female hater either.
What I said was, that you come across as someone with an axe to grind against women. There's quite a difference.
I stand by that assertion, as all your posts have been indicative of this.

I never said that the abuse of girls was all psychological. Where is this coming from? I have no idea how what you're saying here bears any relevance to my post. I was arguing that physical and psychological abuse shouldn't be treated as the same thing.

I certainly don't think most males are abusers of women and children. But I do acknowledge some are, and I don't think you can tackle the problem by glossing over it, or pretending women are worse.

TRTL,

one of the strengths and weakness of the english language is that the interpretation of the meaning of words is different to different people.

If HRS offended by it then he is with in his rights. Me? I still trying to decide.

Psychologist Toby Green wrote an interesting piece about opinions.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22691446-5006049,00.html

"A point of view is literally what we view from the point where we’re standing. Since no two people can occupy the same space at the same time, no two people will ever see exactly the same aspect of what they are both looking at.

We can use this as an opportunity to find out what something looks like from another person’s perspective.

Or use it as a method of making that person wrong for not being able to cohabit our space and see what we see. In other words, make them wrong for not being us. " Toby Green

Typically if one of us blokes tries to present a different opinion, things are suggested like what you said that you suspected the HRS had an axe to grind with women.

My interpretation is that this is a subtle put down to discount what HRS is trying to say.

Daphne Patai,

"Threatened Children, in which he talked about the social construction of child abuse as a problem. What I learned from Best was that there's a predictable process by which a group of claims-makers sets forth a problem and brings it to public attention. There are a series of stages through which the public becomes aware of the problem and begins to accept the terms of the debate as set forth by this group of claims-makers.

They engage in a series of techniques, what Best calls "expansion of the domain of the problem." The public is told that it's not simply a specific problem occurring in a specific setting, but that it's a much broader problem. That way it tends to escape from its borders, so that we become aware that the problem is much, much larger than we thought." Patai.

more to follow.

Fair comment there JamesH - I acknowledge that having an 'axe to grind' does sound dismissive, but I think extrapolating that to 'hating women' is taking it a bit further. As far as I can see, the 'axe to grind' comment is about the harshest I've said, because I've certainly yet to see anything that compels me to believe 'ilk' was an insult.
When I see ilk being blown up as an insulting term, coupled with 'axe to grind' being transformed to 'hates women,' with the addition that I've made some argument about psychological abuse which seems at odds with what I've said, it does appear to me that HRS is falling back on a victim mentality all too quickly, which given the nature of this debate, potentially has some significance.

The point I'm making, at the end of the day, is that in hospital waiting rooms and police stations around the country, the sight of a woman who has been beaten by a man, sadly, isn't uncommon. The reverse evidently occurs, but not nearly to the same extent, and while I'm sure there are anecdotes along these lines out there, the notion that they're occurring in similar numbers is going to be rejected flat out by most people.

In relation to psychological/emotional abuse, I'm simply saying that it's a different problem that has to be looked at differently, and moves to encourage this form of abuse to be viewed on a similar platform as physical abuse, should be rejected, as ultimately I think these would water down our zero tolerance approach to violence, be it toward men, or toward women.

Turnrightthenleft.
I think it is a case of tell the same lie often enough and people will believe it.

The 1 in 3 does appear to be such a lie, and the concept that wide scale of abuse of women by men in this country is another of those lies.

There is very little evidence to support such lies.

Victoria Health found that only 0.6% of women saying that they had been abused had a physical injury.

Out of all men, 0.008% carry out a murder, so it is not even accurate to say that “some” men carry out murder, and more accurate to say that a very small % of men carry out a murder.

QLD released the statistics regards child abuse, and only 5% was sexual abuse, and the most common form of child abuse was neglect. It could be said that sexual abuse of children is being under-reported, and so could all the other forms of abuse.

So I would think that “some” men sexually abuse children is not accurate either, and it could also be “a very small % of men sexually abuse children”.

But call men ilks or abusers and sooner or latter others will begin to believe it.

TRTL,

"The point I'm making, at the end of the day, is that in hospital waiting rooms and police stations around the country, the sight of a woman who has been beaten by a man, sadly, isn't uncommon."

Firstly it is much more common to see guys who have been bashed than women, secondly there are more woman who present to A&E with a heart attack than one who has been bashed.

It was Christina Hoff-Sommers, who in "Who Stole Feminism" wrote about how when charge nurses of A&E departments were asked about how many women presented with injuries from DV.

"The nurses estimates varied from 2 per month to 8 per month in a large hospital."

Patai continued,

Patai talks about how the domain of the problem increases and once this is accepted, then new instances or new definitions get added.

For example sexual abuse of girls could include anything from dads or her brothers playboy collection, to seeing a male naked. so where once sexual abuse meant phsyical sexual abuse, it has now been expand to cover a whole range of behaviours.

So basically if a woman/girl is offended by something then this is abuse.

Eeva Sodhi, had a website "Nojustice" which is archived here:

Manufacturing Research
http://web.archive.org/web/20050313222440/http://www.nojustice.info/Research/ManufacturingResearch.htm

Manufacturing research is truly insightful into research tactics.

Manufacturing Percentages
http://web.archive.org/web/20050313222509/http://www.nojustice.info/ManufacturingPercentages.htm

Perceptions are not Facts
http://web.archive.org/web/20050313222509/http://www.nojustice.info/PerceptionsarenotFacts.htm

Is a very interesting in that it displays how words are used to change perceptions.

Eeva, I believe had to give up her website due to ill health, which I understand to have been breast cancer.

(Although I think the “black eye” and “ilk” arguments are a distraction) I agree with HRS’s summary of DV stats- “Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In non-reciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases…. Regarding injury, men were more likely to inflict injury than were women”

Often when one disputes the figure that 1/3 women experience sexual assault and 1/4 experience DV, or one states that the figures are similar for men, there is often a point blank rebuttal with no discussion of the facts. A more sneaky response is to claim that although the 1/3 and 1/4 stats include non-physical forms of violence and sexual abuse, which men do experience on a similar scale, women are still more likely to experience physical forms of abuse than men. I always find this response interesting- a tacit admission that DV/ abuse rates are equal, but the physical aspect is more important. However you only come across this change of story if you point out the breakdown of the statistics. Otherwise, the 1/3 and 1/4 stats are repeated ad nausea, creating the impression of an epidemic of physical DV and physical sexual abuse, because most people don’t know where the figures come from.

Regarding context,

Another common argument is that women’s violence, both physical and non-physical, occurs less regularly, as one-off outbursts, in retaliation, or self-defence, while men use it as a systematic form of control. I believe this is completely wrong.

Here’s why:

The following link, (US stats, although I understand Australia has similar ratios,) http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/intimates.htm, shows that in 1975, murder rates of “intimate partners” were relatively even- about 1500 female victims per year, and about 1350 male victims p/y. One would think that with the advent of women’s shelters, which have grown in number since the 1970’s, the murder rate of female partners would have dropped dramatically. In fact, murders of females have only dropped to about 1200 per year, while murders of males has fallen to about 350 a year.

cont..

This could back up conventional wisdom- women no longer have to murder their abusive partners to escape an abusive relationship- shelters, and a wide range of other support services, give abused women options. But surely an escape option for abused women would lead to a more dramatic drop in homicides of female intimate partners? There have been huge education and public awareness campaigns over the past decades. We have become a much less macho society, with women present, although not always equally represented, across all areas of society.

I would argue that similar numbers of men find themselves as victims in controlling and abusive relationships as women. However, contrary to conventional wisdom, men have fewer options than women. They have a hard time convincing anybody that they are being abused, and an even harder time coming to the realization that they are being abused in the first place. There are almost no shelters for men trying to get away from abusive relationships. The only information on the true extent of DV against men, or help for men to get away from abusive situations, is on internet websites that most consider to be right-wing extremist.

The issue of domestic violence will not be solved until equal attention and importance is placed on violence committed by women against men as male violence against women. I believe a similar approach needs to be taken to reduce sexual assault against women, and wider problems of denigration of women and sexualisation of young teenage girls. Very few people disagree that attitudes toward, and treatment of women in our society are a concern, but it is very difficult to raise similar concerns about similar attitudes toward, and treatment of men without facing severe censure.

I am very serious about tackling sexual abuse and domestic violence against men and women. Articles such as Crabbe’s, which focus on abuse against women, then make token references to all being “worthy of the utmost respect as human beings,” only tackles one part of the problem. We must also listen to “HRS and those of his ilk.”

JamesH: "Firstly it is much more common to see guys who have been bashed than women, secondly there are more woman who present to A&E with a heart attack than one who has been bashed."

You're right. But in the vast majority of cases it's by other men.

TurnRightThenLeft, regarding your comment from the election. I had a similar thought but that does not take away from the importance of the issue.

I don't know what the Shared Parenting party are like but I strongly believe that with some safeguards in place shared parenting can be far better for all concerned than sole parenting.

I came across a list of references to studies of outcomes this morning (while looking at some totally unrelated matter)

http://www.wiskit.com/marilyn/custody.html

Unfortunately the material mostly looks old and there are no links to the papers themselves, just summary info. I think that we should have some serious research into outcomes in this area. In regard to the original topic of this thread it may be fair to ask how much impact the family situation of children has on teenagers susceptibility to peer pressure and dangerous behaviours.

The research which I have seen seems to suggest that kids from single parent homes are more at risk of a variety of behavioural problems. Are there safe ways we can do better for kids when relationships end?

R0bert

Robert - one of my biggest problems is that when I came to China, obviously I could not bring all my books and papers with me. I have done a lot of research in this area and have all sorts of links and addresses to organisations and studies that have been conducted, but I'm afraid that they are all in storage.

However, from something you once said I believe you work in Brizzie? If you ever have a spare hour (yeah, I know: when do parents ever get a spare hour?)pop over to UQ library. The librarians there love getting their teeth into enquiries and are stars at giving access to all sorts and kinds of materials. Also, try the big library in Brisbane. The trouble with Internet sources is just as you have outlined - and its difficult to sort out what is genuine research and outcomes and what is just people with bees in their bonnets and good intentions.

There is a plethora of material on this subject: it will blow you away. As to children of single-parent families being more at risk? The jury is still out on that as, especially in the lower socio-economic sectors where a lot (but but no means all) of delinquency presents, "disfunctional" (such a silly word, really) families, albeit with two parents in residence, are are represented pretty highly in the background of troubled teens.

Does any of this help at all?

This thread appears to be going in circles.

Dozer, if you look at my earlier posts you will find that according to the Australian Institute of Criminology "in almost 4 out of 5 intimate-partner homicides, the perpetrator was a male and the victim a female....in a little over 1 in 5 incidents, the homicides were committed by a female against a male." I know there are a lot of posts on this thread, but a little fact-checking wouldn't go astray.

TRTL says "You're right. But in the vast majority of cases it's by other men." Too true.

I find it intriguing that now the focus is on the end result.

What are the contribuiting factors that led to the end result?

Is it not possible that there is a pathway that leds to this end result?

Alcohol and drug abuse are factors and so is mental illness. I was watching Australian Story where a journalist had a relationship with a very controling man who is a suspect in a number of disappearences. It sounded like this man was more than likely a psychopath.

So of the men who murder. How many are either drug or alcohol affected? Mentally ill? or psychopaths?

Johnj

Fact checking? Circles? How about understanding subtle but important differences, and looking at something from a different angle? I always make sure I read every post on a thread before I make a response. If I checked every link, I would never leave my room.

The statistics presented by the AIC paper you link to do correspond to the US justice department statistics I link to- specifically, that homicides of intimate partners has decreased over the last few decades, and that males are more likely to kill their female partners than visa versa.
However, neither AIC link you provide gives any comparative information, over time, of male homicides of female intimate partners verses female homicides of male intimate partners. While http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/ti90.pdf does mention a declining trend of intimate homicides in the US, and links this to “factors such as shifts in patterns of family formation associated with declining domesticity, the improved status of women, and increases in the availability of domestic violence services,” it does not ask why, as I have, this increased availability of domestic violence services has led to a greater drop of murders of male intimate partners than it has of female intimate partners.
(The authors of the AIC report definitely could have asked this question, especially as one of the studies they link to (Dugan, Nagin, Explaining the Decline in Intimate Partner Homicide, 1997,) makes note of the “pronounced decline in the rate at which married women kill their husbands.” http://hsx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/3/3/187. Unless I sign up to some online journals or visit Melbourne University Baillieu Library, I won’t know what the Dugan study has to say on the matter.)
So, I provided information, which you did not, that showed that homicides of males by female intimate partners, has decreased far more dramatically than homicides of females by male intimate partners over the last few decades. Unlike you, or the report you linked to, I questioned why the introduction of domestic violence services, purportedly meant to protect women, has actually saved more male lives than female lives.

You used the statistics you linked to support the argument that, overall, men are more violent than women, (no disagreement from me, although I would point out that men, particularly young men, are more likely to be the victims of violent attacks,) and as part of a very silly argument over female elks, (not your fault.)

I provided statistics (more detailed in terms of gender comparisons over time,) to support my argument that until domestic violence, (and sexual violence and sexual discrimination more generally,) is treated in a gender neutral manner, or to put it another way, until domestic violence against men is taken seriously by the government and mainstream society, we will not solve the problem of domestic violence.

I would do some fact checking, and critical thinking, before I accused another of not checking their facts.

My apologies Dozer, I didn't read your posts properly.

That said, I don't believe US statistics are necessarily useful for examining Australian trends. The only long-term Australian homicide stats I can find are here http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4524A092E30E4486CA2569DE00256331 . Unfortunately these are not disagregated by gender. Given the disparity of Australian and US homicide rates (currently 1.5/100,000 versus 5/100,000) I don't think you can extrapolate from US stats to the Australian situation.

I was interested in homicide rates because there can be little issue of "unreported" homicides and they are broadly in line with convictions for assault. This flies in the face of survey data that suggests male/female violence in intimate relationships is broadly equal. This suggests a methodology issue with these studies.

Abusive (though non-violent) relationships are a different matter altogether. I certainly believe that women can be as abusive as men in a relationship.

JohnJ,
What you are not mentioning, is that only 0.002% of males carry out a murder, and if women mainly kick, scratch or throw things then it is not that effective in killing someone. However it has been found that women will carry out more poising which is also not that effective (but can lead to liver damage), and have been known to enlist someone else to do the actual murder.

In the case of child abuse, only about 5% is sexual abuse, and the most common form of child abuse is neglect.

While not accepting child sexual abuse, I tend to think that the feminist concentration on child sex abuse is being done to hide the fact that most child abuse is from neglect, and there are 10 times more women involved in that aspect of child abuse then there are men involved in child sexual abuse.

HRS, I'm seeing various comparisons from you, but not many direct ones.

i.e. Yes, more bashed men present to hospital than women. But not more men bashed by women, than women bashed by men.

Yes, more neglect abuse occurs than sexual abuse, and women are more likely to neglect than sexually abuse. But this is two kinds of abuse.

I don't see you mentioning that more men are likely to be sexual abusers. Where's the direct comparison between men and women here?

In relation to neglect, where's the direct comparison between the overall number of single mothers and the overall number of single fathers and neglect figures?

These skewed comparisons do more to distort than enlighten. As I've said before, there's legitimate reasons to argue on behalf of a better image for men, but the way you're going about it isn't how it should be done, nor is it about trying to deny that men, on average, are more violent than women.

Thanks TRTL, you've nicely summed up the issues.

HRS, I really have nothing further to add to my previous comments. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Turnrightthenleft.
There are men who are violent, but I would be interested to know what % of men are violent.

If you said that because some Muslims are terrorists, then all Muslims are terrorists, then this would be discrimination.

If you said that because some men are violent, then all men are violent, then I would have to regard this as being discrimination also.

I have never seen a woman with a black eye, and the only time I have been injured by a male was when they accidentally stood on my finger, so I would be interested to know what % of men are physically violent.

And no, I’m not interested in claims of abuse, but in verifiable evidence. The Nazis claimed that Jews were violent and were bad for society, but this was never supported by much verifiable evidence.

An extremely significant contribuiting factor in male violence is drug and alcohol use and abuse. Another significant factor is what is known as 'acquired brain injury' in other words a person with ABI may have a personality change ie from being passive to aggressive.

HRS you raise a very significant point.

<i>"She suggests that mothers' physical violence toward children, particularly male children, plays a key part in perpetuating the cycle of abuse.

Mills does not deny (and neither does anyone else) that male violence toward women is more likely to result in physical injuries than the reverse, and that women in abusive relationships are more likely than men to be in danger. But she argues that this is no reason to disregard female violence, which needs to be acknowledged not only out of fairness to male victims but out of concern for female victims as well: A woman who starts a physical confrontation with her male partner may well find herself severely battered. To understand and prevent male violence, Mills concludes, we must understand female violence as well, whether it's physical assault or psychological aggression."</i>

Differences in Frequency of Violence and Reported Injury Between Relationships
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/5/941

Results. Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases.
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/11/20/new-study-punctures-feminist-domestic-violence-myths-about-control-and-jealousy/

"The study involved an analysis of data originally obtained through the National Violence Against Women Survey in the mid-90's. Felson and Outlaw looked at the 10,000 respondents (out of the total sample of 16,000) who were currently married, and found that adult women are just as controlling and jealous towards their male partners as the other way around.

"They also found that the relationship between use of control and jealousy and physical violence existed equally for both male and female respondents, and that 'intimate terrorists' can be either male or female....

HRS - that's shifting the ball. I've never said all men are violent. Nobody is parrotting the line.
I'm a man. I'm not the least bit violent.

Most men aren't violent. I'm just saying that more men are violent when directly compared to women.

That's a fact. Denying it gets us nowhere, nor does playing with indirect statistics. All you can do is highlight situation where unfair incidents have occurred, or legislation isn't equal, and go from there.

To do this however, you need to acknowledge the realities of the situation. I feel no guilt for what other men do - I had nothing to do with it. But I'm willing to condemn them.

Same for muslim terrorists. I don't condemn muslims nor do I condemn men in broad strokes. But I'll gladly condemn muslim terrorists or violent men.

There'll never be any overall statistics on how many men 'are violent.' It's not a cut and dry thing. You can only look at statistics on assault or other crimes, and to do that just go to BOCSAR or the Qld police site. The statistics are quite clear.

As for women with black eyes, then consider yourself fortunate. I've known a number of people who work with the police and busy hospitals.
One police station had more than half its resources tied up in dealing with domestic violence. A flatmate who was a nurse saw black eyes reasonably frequently.

These things happen and it's men doing most of them. Refusing to acknowledge this doesn't help anyone.

Turnrightthenleft
You haven’t given any % figures, just some statements that women turn up at hospitals with black eyes. That could be true, or it could not be true.

If men in jail are anything to go by, then men in prison represent 0.15% of men in Australia,.but the majority are not there for violent crimes, but more often they are there because of drug related crimes. There is also belief that prisons are being used as mental hospitals.

I have seen many thousands of women, but none with a black eye. But I can’t remember the last time I ever heard a woman say something positive about men, or about boys for that matter.

Women are being trained to think negatively of both men and boys.

HRS - in response:

You say "Women are being trained to think negatively of both men and boys."

This is at the core of our dispute, I think. I reject this statement - what would be more accurate, is that a few fringe feminists have this agenda, and generalise all men as being bad or violent.
Their main crime, is to tar all men with the same brush.

You've just committed exactly the same error. Believe it or not, most women know and like at least some men.

What's more, you're attempting to deny reality to fit your view.

What I really object to, is that you're attempting to play down the numbers and possibility severity of crimes committed by men. This distortion is even worse than that committed by the fringe feminists.

Acknowledging that more men are violent then women is just accepting the truth. Denying this is pushing an agenda.

Given your claims are more outlandish than mine I'd have thought the statistics onus was on you, but nevertheless, here you are: this is from BOCSAR

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/cjb89.doc/$file/cjb89.doc

Scroll to page nine:

"As can be seen from Figure 8, the majority of victims of domestic assault were female (71.1%) and the majority of offenders were male (80.4%). This finding is to be expected given that a large proportion of victims of domestic violence are women who are abused by their male partners (Stubbs & Powell 1989; Dobash & Dobash 2004). It is noteworthy, nonetheless, that 28.9 per cent of victims of domestic assault recorded by police are male."

Of course, you can go on to the other sections, and find the bits by age (which are proportional, not overall) or find the bits where men are assaulted too. Yes, it happens.

But don't ever try to pretend this assault isn't going on and isn't widespread and don't try to pretend women are just as guilty.

As for black eyes, because you're not seeing them doesn't mean they're not there.
Women wear makeup to cover these things and many become reclusive after being beaten.

Romany, sorry about the delay. I've been focussing my posting efforts elsewhere recently. Thanks for the idea's. I'll keep them in mind if the opportunity arises. Currently little child free/work free time to get to the big libraries but that will change over the next few years.

One of the most difficult parts of making sense of what info is available is trying to come to grips with the motivations and methods of the researchers. Advocacy research seems so common.

The other is in trying to see the breakup of the data into the relevant groupings and then making sense of cause and effect.

Cheers
R0bert

Yep, I know what you mean. Both as a Free Lance and as an academic, a large proportion of my adult life has been - and still is of course - taken up by research.

However, what I found great as the kids got older was that it was something I could share with them. A large part of research being gathered at source (not just libraries, I mean, but everywhere from sheltered workshops to so-called celeb. interviews)they would often come along with me and their input proved invaluable at times.

As for them, although more traditional parents often slagged me off, I now hear my kids telling their mates how great it was and how much they learned about life and all sorts of issues. Not to mention the fact that they now also do exhaustive research on so many aspects of their lives as well!! But yeah - it ain't easy.

The first paper, by Daniel Whittaker and colleagues, appeared in the May, 2007 issue of American Journal of Public Health and reports on findings from the 2001 National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health with a sample of more than 11,000 young adults between the ages of 18 and 28. Among those findings: (1) 70.7% of nonreciprocal physical violence was perpetrated by females, and (2) in reciprocally-violent relationships, men incurred the majority of the physical injuries. Overall, women incurred more physical injuries, but the difference was quite small. You can find an abstract and a review of this paper at www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/5/941.

The study involved an analysis of data originally obtained through the National Violence Against Women Survey in the mid-90's. Felson and Outlaw looked at the 10,000 respondents (out of the total sample of 16,000) who were currently married, and found that adult women are just as controlling and jealous towards their male partners as the other way around. They also found that the relationship between use of control and jealousy and physical violence existed equally for both male and female respondents, and that "intimate terrorists" can be either male or female. Controlling and jealous behaviors were defined as follows:

"It should be pointed out that the National Violence Against Women Survey was designed, conducted and analyzed by feminist researchers, whose intentions from start to finish were to make the case that violence against female intimate partners is a serious social problem, and one that is much more serious than violence against male intimate partners. This, I believe, lends quite a bit of added credibility to Felson's findings."

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1417#more-1417

Turnrightthenleft,the regurgitator.

I’m wondering if you have any capability of thinking for yourself. Nearly everything in your posts I have already read elsewhere, and you appear to be regurgitating what someone else has told to you.

The idea that I have never seen a woman with a black eye is because they wear makeup appears to be one such regurgitated or brainwashed response, as I have heard it said elsewhere also. But where I live, it is too hot to wear makeup.

You still have not given the actual % of the men who are physically violent or sexually abusive.

In terms of child sexual abuse, 0.04% of men in QLD carried out child sexual abuse last year, where the sexual abuse was actually verified.

Yet we are told that 1 in 3 girls are being sexually abused. The figures don’t correlate, so the figure of 1 in 3 must be made up by one of those mysterious but not so rare “radical feminists”.

The so called victim of domestic violence is normally regarded as the person who is most injured, and that person is normally the woman. But as shown by the research carried out by the US, where the domestic violence is not mutual, women were the perpetrators 70% of the time, while men caused more injuries.

Its all about money, all knowing but regurgitating Turnrightthenleft, and also about not taking responsibility.

Stereotype males as being abusers, and it makes it easier for women to get more and more money from men, and it also makes it easier for women to take minimal responsibility for anything they do.

You asked for statistics, and I got them.

As I've said, you're never ever going to get statistics on such a diffuse idea as of who is 'violent.'
You'd need to reach consensus on what a violent person is (just one attack? How severe? slapping? Poking?) and of course, there would be many people attempting to discredit such a finding anyway.

As for regurgitation, did you stop to think that perhaps the reason why you hear that claim for so many quarters is because it's the right one? That's not 'regurgitation' that's a chorus of assent. Think for a moment what it would be like to be a woman wandering around with a black eye, and what people would assume.
Aside from that fact, black eyes aren't even all than an effective measure of domestic violence - did it occur to you that men seeking to avoid scrutiny for domestic violence would apply violence to parts of the body less likely to be seen in public?

You're the one making wild claims based solely on the supposition that because you see black eyes they're not really there - seeing as your claims fall further outside the well accepted orthodoxy, I challenge you to be the one to back them up.

I've agreed the 1 in 3 figure sounds exaggerated. What I dispute is your attempt to play down the situation even further by denying violence against women is widespread, and pretending women are just as bad.

Talk to police, nurses, ambos and social workers. I've spoken to many people across these professions, but I guess when I state their overwhelming consensus I'm just 'regurgitating.' How bout you find me comments from these people that back your view huh? I can sure as hell find some that back mine.

As for the studies cited by you and JamesH I'd be interested in receiving more information on the definition of violence. As more injuries are still being caused by men despite your claims more women are doing so, indicates that the 'violence' being committed by these women isn't nearly as severe.

It's also a class issue, surely.

I helped a Indigenous woman the other day – she'd been beaten up *horribly* by her partner. Her back was black and blue – it looked like she's been trying to protect herself by curling up into a ball and he'd just gone her.

Another couple found her bleeding in the street, then my partner and I joined in and ended up taking her to a few different places. At one point all four of us were trying to entreat her not to return to her partner. She knew what he'd done was wrong, but clearly she's going to find it hard to actually leave him.

The difference between me and her is so vast and untraversable. The fact is, I come from a stable, unviolent family, as does my partner, and we have created a stable, unviolent family. If either of us were to turn nasty and beat up the other, there's no doubt that the innocent party would bring the full force of the law into play. Without guilt. And although we're not rich, if either of us had to leave, we could rely on an extensive network for financial and emotional support. I have so many more *resources* than this poor girl, who had to deal with her trauma publicly and had to beg for help.

I note HRS is here once again claiming he never hears women speak positively of men or boys. Once again, HRS: I AM A FEMINIST AND I LOVE MEN. To bits, in fact.

He'll ignore it, but I thought it was worth pointing out.

Turnrighthenleft

I have heard it all before, about talking to police, nurses and social workers. Nothing you say is original.

If all this violence and abuse from males towards females is so widespread, then there would definitely be some statistics available to show what % of males are violent or abusive towards women.

I have heard of a case recently where a woman has been ordered to attend a court on 3 occasions, and on 3 occasions she has failed to turn up. But the man has to keep paying her money.

There is a more extreme case currently in the US where a mother killed a son, and has been in jail for a number of years and is about to be released. But a court has now decided that when she is released, the father has to pay her over $3,000 a month in alimony. The children are living with the father and do not wish to live with the mother who murdered their brother, but the mother is not required to pay the father any child support. Instead, he has to pay her money in the form of alimony.

No matter what the situation, the man has to pay the woman money, because the man is stereotyped as being the abuser.

So that is why feminists like to stereotype both men and boys as being abusers, but are never willing to say exactly how many men or boys are abusers.

They want males stereotyped as abusers so they will be paying women money, no matter what the situation.

Botheration,
Link to an article written by a feminist that says positive things about men, and I'll read it.

I've never been able to find such an article, like I've never been able to find a woman with a black eye.

HRS: Ok, a quick five minute google:

A feminist love letter to men: http://www.ubersite.com/m/31033

Article about a feminist who's written a book defending men: http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/stories/MYSA112707.parkerinterview.EN.465e8a23.html

Here's a feminist blogger on why it's a fallacy that feminists hate men: http://happyfeminist.typepad.com/happyfeminist/2006/10/on_manhating_be.html

I can do more if you want, but somehow I suspect you're going to change the subject right about now.

By the way, you might also be interested in Jackson Katz: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fashion/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/fashion/2007/11/25/st_jacksonkatz.xml

botheration, I think you're right about the subject being changed... it would appear that unless the information is presented ina very narrow context, it won't be accepted.

HRS, I guess you can disagree with my assertion that actually comprising a study on who is 'violent' would be difficult, though I don't see how you can use that as an excuse to justify ignoring figures that show men commit more assault than women. I guess if it doesn't fit your pre-packaged concept of what you'd like to debate then you won't engage it.

Similarly, I see you dismiss the point made about ambos, social workers police and so on, saying you've heard it all before and it's not 'original.'

I don't claim that these are original, just that they're right.

Again, you're avoiding the bits that don't suit you, though on this score I don't blame you. As I see it, if you actually engage that point, in order to refute it the only options are:

a) acknowledge that yes, there is a consensus amongst these professions, but try to discredit them by claiming you somehow are more informed.

b) say that there isn't a consense from these groups, but in order to do that you'd probably need to back it or nobody will believe you.

It's probably no wonder you've heard these arguments time and time again. People keep saying them because you're not listening.

Though I see its fine for you to dismiss others anecdotes, but when you bring some court cases forward, they must be indicative of the overall situation.

I never claimed men aren't being hard done by by women, in fact I said where legislation is uneven it should be looked at. What's objectionable, is you trying to pretend we don't have a significant domestic violence problem, and trying to tell me that women aren't those who suffer the most from it.

JamesH's study may have some merit, I haven't looked at it, but the point I raised at the end of my previous post stands as a pretty big obstacle to it backing your case.

There is a struggle to form an argument that can stand a debate such as this...so the most balanced point of view slowly takes the central stage with other arguments fail on the facts/basis relied to originate from the real world we live in and...falling to the sides...

eg botheration wrote 'I helped a Indigenous woman the other day – she'd been beaten up *horribly* by her partner.'...now note male on female violence put as 'example'...fact is in aboriginal areas where access to alcohol is easy...they are all bashing each other...worked in Alice Springs hospital and sometimes you dont know where to put the sutures because of the scars on top of scars with laceration...didnt see male female difference but all reeked of alcohol...so this statement falls off as being 'premediated for effect'for ignoring all relevant facts...while hoping no one knows better...and no comments to 'i love all men to bits' but say doubt that very much...as talk is cheap...what is the walk to prove your talk youve done...besides claim to be a feminist to which i agree from the unbalanced post...

We live in a world of technological benefit derived from knowledge gained from science...fundamental essence to science is 'fact of observation'...meaning first state in its entirerity the situation first...before trying to asses and interpret... eg http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ answers from scientist and note the language and balanced presentation...

now approaching any issue with such 'scientific' mind will certainly lead to quickly getting to that balanced point of view in any controversy as a group...and clarify all relevant material facts, issues and most importantly...identify corrupting actions clearly such as excluding material facts, false facts, beliefs without/little basis, overt/hidden agendas, use the power of 'uniform group approach' to force an view to be accepted by other individuals etc

we fundamentally struggle here because there is no reliable data/fact to go on...so first issue to tackle is why is this so...and this is where the current favoured support to feminist by government and parliament must be assessed...and to why it is so...albeit diminishing rapidly with time...and thank god

Sam

Botheration,
Unfortunately you only got 1 out of 4.

Your first article seems to be from some rather obscure blog site, and it did say something positive about men, but one of the comments to this little piece was “Unfortunately, you are a woman and I don't believe a word of it.”

The second article was written by a feminist who is complaining about all the negative stereotyping of men that has been carried out by other feminists.

The 3rd and 4th articles don’t say anything positive about men at all, and the fourth article actually portrays men as being rapists, and seems to be something straight out of 1970’s feminism.

All these articles were from the US, but I have not heard of one single feminist in the US who has complained about a system that orders a man to pay alimony to his ex-wife, who is about to be released from jail because she killed his son.

So this makes the first article extremely suspect also.

Due to the negative stereotyping of men by so many feminists in the US, the men in that country are now worth absolutely nothing, except as a source of money for women.

That is rapidly becoming the situation in this country also.

Turnrightthenleft,
You’re saying that men are violent, so I would like to know what % of men are violent.

I can tell you that less than 0.002% of men carry out a murder of a woman each year, and I can tell you that in QLD last year, less than 0.04% of men sexually abused a child.

So after having asked you twice already, I would still like to hear from you what % of men are violent or abusive towards women.

Is it 100%, or 50% or 0.05% or less.

Sam Said,
It appears that many aboriginal men and women have lost their sense of place and also their sense of value.

That is very concerning, because in a feminist world, there is no value placed on men except as a source of money for women.

TRTL,

the WSS conducted by the ABS included behaviours like stalking, unwelcome sexual advances, shouting, threats,excetra.

If your criteria for DV is injury needing medical attention, then the incidence of DV would be more like 1 in 10,000 or perhaps even 1 in 100,000.

One thing which is interesting about the police and the Ambos, (who I do have contact with) is that they will attend mutiple incidences at the same residences.

Unfortunately statistics do not destinguish these multiple episodes, for example if 10 women ring and complain about DV 10 times. Is it 10 episodes or 100?

Hi HRS,

Here’s a list of women who support fathers’ rights: http://www.glennsacks.com/women_who_have.htm

Here’s Nobel laureate and feminist Doris Lessing encouraging feminists to support men: http://books.guardian.co.uk/edinburghbookfestival2001/story/0,1061,536568,00.html

Another feminist for dads at Reason magazine: http://www.reason.com/news/show/118168.html

Also, for the Australian perspective, the Women’s Electoral Lobby (arguably the foremost feminist group in Australia) “supports the International Labour Organisation Convention No. 156: Equal Opportunities and Equal Treatment for Men and Women Workers: Workers with Family Responsibilities, which advocates work practices which accept that *both men and women* have family responsibilities and urges the Government to ensure its implementation in full.”

Sorry you didn’t like my first choices. However, you asked for feminists saying positive things about men. You got the first article. “I love men, and I do think guys have been treated unfairly” comes from the the second. And I chose the third because it asserted that everyone, “male and female alike, [should] be seen as necessary and valuable for the individual abilities and characteristics we bring to the table.”

So, using your original criteria, I actually got three out of three. The fourth was an optional extra – I just thought you might be intersted in a male feminist. I’m done googling, but feel free to continue the search if you’re keen to find futher feminist support.

Sam, I didn’t meet any men who were brutally beaten up by their wives last week, or I would have cited it as another example. I’m distressed you’ve such a dim view of my honesty – I just want to contribute to this debate, because it interests me. I have an ex-boyfriend who’d been physically abused by a previous girlfriend so I know that it happens. I believe we should seek to resolve all conflict in rational and non-violent ways, regardless of gender.

Best of luck to both of you.

Oh, and I know this ruins the joke, but I’m a pedant.

ilk noun 1. family, class, or kind

Botheration,
You have basically presented some women who are supporting men, but they don’t call themselves feminist.

Dorris Lessing is not a feminist. She rejected feminism many years ago. (eg “What a lot of bitches have been created by the women's movement. It really is frightening” http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/stories/s390537.htm)

Glen Sacks has never called himself a feminist, and on his list is an Australian woman (Sue Price), who has been a very harsh critic of feminists, and has never once called herself a feminist.

I don’t think Cathy Young has ever called herself a feminist either.

There is minimal evidence of feminists supporting men, but there is every bit of evidence that they carry out some of the highest levels of discrimination, prejudiced and bigotry, carry out some of the worst examples of advocacy research, and present enormous amounts of misinformation, and an example of this is the 1 in 3.

Hi HRS,

I’m afraid that’s not all correct.

Firstly, Doris Lessing has had a long and complicated relationship with the feminist movement. She is one of its harshest critics (which is why I searched for an article by her) but she’s also a founder of the moment. Read The Golden Notebook; read The Good Terrorist. Lessing won the Nobel prize because, in the words of the academy, "The burgeoning feminist movement saw [the Golden Notebook] as a pioneering work, and it belongs to the handful of books that informed the 20th-century view of the male-female relationship."

Secondly, Cathy Young most certainly calls herself a feminist (a “dissendent feminist”, to be precise) and has written a book called Ceasefire: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality. She’s been a popular feminist columnist in Reason. Not every feminist agrees with her – but it's an intellectually independent movement and can cope with differing views.

You’re right that the list I posted is of women rather than feminists. Note that I never claimed otherwise. However, before I posted I googled some random names on the list and was satisfied that quite a few identified as feminists. I am absolutely NOT doing more research for you, but just google a few names and you’ll see what I mean. You can start with the first one.

So, I’ve now found you five feminists sticking up for men, and one list that includes many more. And, yet, my money’s on the fact that your next post will refer to the deceptive nature of feminists. Am I right, or am I right?

Given I’ve done all this research for you, will you tell me something? Where does your attitude to feminists come from? What’s happened in your life to create this anger? None of that silly sarcasm – may I have an honest response?

botheration wrote 'I’m distressed you’ve such a dim view of my honesty'...

er...honesty was not the focus but unbalanced view of the issue, here its abuse...and your post was man bashing women...and did you ask her why the violent altercation, was she drunk...did she give him lacerations, was she provoking him when he was drunk etc...all this would make interesting discusssion in debate such as this but from your post all you seemed to have done is man always bad. women innocent naive and good, and 'encouraged her to leave him'...for all you know he may be at the local hospital with a knife in the back from her...right...

fundamental requirement to asses all human behaviour is to understand the circumstances at time first, then ask what would a reasonable 'person' do...note not female/male...then what did the people in the situation acutally do...to give a reasonable chance of understanding the incident you refer to...and since you appear to want to be a reasonable person i think you would agree with this...

so the basic point is talk from perspective as a 'person'...not from 'group' as in feminist...because the group agenda becomes dominant and individuals start toeing the line...and why the anger against feminist you asked hrs...let me answer...go spend a day at the family court or domestic violence super courts...the bias towards women/mothers so in your face...and corruption to process like evidence and presumed innocent...that its hard not to walk out without some justified anger...the unbalanced self interest of women/mothers taking advantage of above said 'horribly' affecting men and their children is open and apparent...its life long...and harmed numbers are rapidly building...

if i may offer an advice to someone who wants to be part of a debate like you want to...look at the plus/minus from perspectives(ie rights/interests) of all involved to issue...and comment from this stage will most likely be accepted with least negative responses...

Sam

HRS

'I have looked through a number of dictionaries for the definition of a term you used to describe a male politician, to find it defined as being “vulgar” in every dictionary.

But everyone knows that women are never abusive, and you would be an example of that, made even more interesting by the fact that you were once a teacher.'

You are confusing me with CJ Morgan. I'm the teacher, and the one that you have referred to as using a term that is 'vulgar'.

You really need to expand your repertoire.

It doesn't surprise me that this thread on sexual abuse has been channeled into comments on single mothers, and therefore misused as apparent support for shared parenting.

'I don't know what the Shared Parenting party are like but I strongly believe that with some safeguards in place shared parenting can be far better for all concerned than sole parenting.'

Disagree with that completely.

It can only be successful when you have two parents that respect each other, respect each others parenting role and relationships with the child/ren, have new partners that respect and support BOTH parents and their parenting roles, live close to each other, have similar parenting styles and values, are on the same page so to speak, and are willing to share ALL aspects of parenting (e.g. take time off work to care for sick kids)

I believe that with divorced couples that have achieved this post-separation relationship, then they're already sharing parenting.

It's the parents that don't have that respectful relationship that will not successfully share parenting, and it shouldn't be imposed on the kids, particularly when they're not use to the other parent playing such a large role.

Blanket shared parenting is ideological, misinformed, and unfair to children.

liz post shows the fear and insecurity of women/mothers...just like fathers and their children.

In family separation i did not want the mother to have any care of my child...had lot of reasons including reckless psychological attack on my child by mother to break established and strongly bonded fatherchild meaningful relationship...and the fearfull, stressed and broken child it caused...

I lost the case which went through full court of appeal to high court...on issue of law and not fact on which i would have won...though i believe if there was a higher court then high court could be shown to have got it wrong...but there isnt and now parliament changed laws to some argued in my case...

and i agree that this is the wrong topic for above...and to why in family separation its of paramount importance that court/government/parliament take all effort and time to ensure a balanced outcome is achieved...so fear all round is settled without giving anyone the dominant power over the child...and continue regulating...bit like driving...use the road but know the rules and regulations and ensure you stay within even at moments its the last thing you want to do for benefit of all and to keep the system workable...and most importantly strictly enforce accountability...otherwise the whole thing comes crashing down in a rapid heap when the unresolved pressure breaks through the seams...

Sam

Botheration,
I’ve only asked you once to give some information, but it is interesting that there are now feminists who call themselves “dissident feminists”. Feminism has become extremely confusing, similar to the statistics produced by so many feminists that rarely correlate with other statistics.

Liz,
You have used a term described in several dictionaries as being vulgar, and C.J Morgan also used a term described in several dictionaries as being vulgar (when describing a male politician). Both terms were abusive, and both yourself and C.J Morgan have been, or still are teachers.

Perhaps the modern (or progressive) trend in education is not to use dictionaries anymore, but I personally have known of considerable abuse carried out by teachers on students, and some of the greatest acts of discrimination and prejudice are now being carried out in schools.

The author wants to be able to go into schools to lecture boys on not being abusive, but one would think that the author should first check to see how many of the teachers are abusive, and also check to see how much discrimination and prejudice is being carried out in schools.

Perhaps the author could also read the book “Queen bees and Wannabees” by Rosalind Wiseman (that was later made into the movie “Mean Girls”)

The book highlights that the greatest dangers to girls going to school in the US was actually from other girls, and not from boys.

But as the education system has become so feminist, I think the Rosalind Wiseman overlooked how much danger there is to both girl and boy students from the teachers.

Gawd. HRS/Timkins bleats on, as ever, with little regard for reality, or indeed the topic.

"Perhaps the modern (or progressive) trend in education is not to use dictionaries anymore"

Perhaps our boringly repetitious bleater could use his own advice and look up the word "ilk" in his dictionary. He and others of his ilk seem to have great difficulty in recognising the sad reality that sexual abuse is overwhelmingly a male crime - yes, only a very small minority of men do it, but it's still a far smaller minority of women who do it.

Perhaps Timkins/HRS could direct us to a female equivalent of the crime that was the subject of the article? I won't hold my breath.

"...both yourself and C.J Morgan have been, or still are teachers."

I used to be a university lecturer, which I suppose is a kind of teacher (of adults). If Timkins/HRS had ever attended a university he would know that 'vulgar' terms are often used among students and their lecturers where apposite, as was the case with the term I used to describe the odious Kevin Andrews.

In fact, I think that the term could quite fittingly be also applied to Timkins/HRS and others of his misogynist ilk. Give me a good straightforward vulgar epithet over endless disingenuous bleating anyday.

C. J Morgan,
So you were a university lecturer. Now I understand, but university education is supposed to be at a higher level than primary or secondary school education, and involve higher standards.

Universities also train teachers.

You now call Kevin Bartlet “odious”, but why aren’t you calling him by the other term you have used in the past, (described as being vulgar in several dictionaries).

You are saying that “a very small minority of men” carry out sexual abuse of females. So what is the actual %, and is the amount of sexual abuse being carried out a small percentage of the overall amount of abuse that is occurring.

This was eventually found by Rosalind Wiseman in her investigations in US schools

Normal feminist research would likely involve asking girls questions such as “When was the last time you were abused by a male”, but instead, the girls were asked questions such as “When was the last time you were abused”.

The results were that girls were far more likely to feel abused or victimised by other girls than by boys.

As a past university lecturer, I’m also wondering when was the last time you were abused by a male, and when was the last time you abused a male

Or, as a past university lecturer in a non-gender prejudiced education system, when was the last time you were abused by a female, and when was the last time you abused a female (such as calling them a vulgar term).

HRS/Timkins - you need help. Get some.

Seriously.

There is an interesting programme on SBS at the moment, examing
the relationships between males and females from an evolutionary
biology point of view. A similar book is available from
Dymocks.

http://www.drtatiana.com/

Sounds like in evolutionary terms, males are just a means to an
end. They want their bit of nooky, females want good genes
and resources to raise the offspring.

Sounds like we have all watched too many holywood movies and
the real world is quite different :)

I hate to turn on my own, but HRS, put a sock in it. I have considered you an ally on a number of these threads, especially when you called Ronnie Peters a retard, which I thoroughly supported. I had assumed that your combative tone was merely in response to his. But TRTL and botheration are not Ronnie Peters.

TRTL questioned the 1/3 statistic in the very first post, but you have entangled him in a stupid argument over the nature of the word ilk. When TRTL said “To HRS and others of his ilk,” he was not denigrating men’s rights advocates, or insinuating the blanket label of “misogynist,” as CJ Morgan has recently done, but merely questioning tactics.

The black eye argument is one of the dumbest I’ve ever heard. I have a female friend who has been raped twice. The girl who held a knife to my throat and controlled my life for 6 years had received terrible abuse herself- her dad had held a gun to her and her mum’s heads, and the last time she saw him, he raped her mum in front of her eyes. But this anecdotal evidence does not support the argument that there is an epidemic of abuse against women. Neither does your anecdotal evidence support the argument that abuse of women is not at epidemic proportions. Asking where all the supposed abused women are, because you’ve never seen a black eye, just isn’t helping.

Botheration:

I appreciate your acknowledgement of the existence of abuse of males by females, but I share HRS’s confusion over your choice of links. Rather than arguing over who is a feminist and who is not, I would like to draw attention to http://www.reason.com/news/show/118168.html, and http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/stories/MYSA112707.parkerinterview.EN.465e8a23.html. These articles quote “feminists” Kathleen Parker and Cathy Young, who support arguments made by HRS, JamesH, myself and others:

An unfair representation of men as abusers;

“There is the sense that men can't be trusted and women and children can't be trusted with them, that all men are potential pedophiles.”

“the Super Bowl myth,”

“the inaccuracies and bias in the

2005 PBS documentary "Breaking the Silence: The Children's Stories," which painted fathers who seek custody of their children as presumptive abusers.”

The anti-male attitudes prevalent in society and the education system;

“Boys are falling behind,” Parker said. “We need to shift the pendulum back and make schools more appealing to boys… start treating our boys like we began treating our girls 20 years ago.”

(note to CJ- do you consider these women to be misogynists?)

Regarding “dissident feminists,” I get the impression that these dissidents receive just as much bile as men’s rights advocates (google Erin Pizzey.) When one considers all the different strands of feminism- radical, gender, environmental, Marxist, separatist, etc, the more moderate strands of equity or liberal feminism appear vastly outnumbered.

I would note Cathy Young’s comments:

“While feminists have called for more male involvement in child-rearing, the women's movement has also championed blatant favoritism toward mothers in child custody disputes, often to the point of vilifying fathers. This seems to be a clear case of putting solidarity with women over equity. While the fathers' rights movement has often been depicted as a patriarchal backlash, it is in many ways more faithful to the true feminist legacy than are the women's groups which endorse maternal chauvinism.”

This appears to be a criticism of the feminist mainstream, made by an outsider seeking to reform it, to return it to its egalitarian roots.

I am critical of “The Happy Feminist” article. Even though, on the surface, it appears to say some nice things about men, it reveals what I think is one of the fundamental flaws of feminism- lip service is paid to the way feminism liberates men from the restrictive norms of patriarchy, yet in reality it seek to break men down, reconstruct all the masculinity out of them, and build them back up in the image of what feminists think men should be. Feminism really doesn’t understand men. Its main focus is on women, (fair enough) but the liberation/ “betterment” of men is just an afterthought. As a result, men are left angry, confused, and alienated.

"It's the parents that don't have that respectful relationship that will not successfully share parenting, and it shouldn't be imposed on the kids, particularly when they're not use to the other parent playing such a large role.

Blanket shared parenting is ideological, misinformed, and unfair to children."
Posted by Liz, Saturday, 1 December 2007 7:56:36 PM

Firstly, I suppose it OK then that feminists/feminism has a blanket ideology when it suits.

Some sceptics in regards to the 'best interest of the children' ideology have written that this does not stand up to scrutiny when a childs best interests are not in the best interests of the mother!

As a child grows, their needs change, unfortunately in intact relationships as the kids mature, the primary income earner is usually building a career or trying to earn income to support the increasing costs of the family. (A double edged sword)

Just look at the politicans who have given up politics to have more family time.

Now I guess most primary care givers, in an intact relationship would be encouraging the primary income earner to spend more time with the kids.

Now suddenly the couple split, sorry you cant be more involved with the kids because you weren't involved before?

What a double standard!

Ideological equality is not something which can be conveniently ignored because it gets too hard or too difficult or doesn't fit with maternal chauvinism.

Hi Dozer. You wrote: "I share HRS’s confusion over your choice of links... These articles quote “feminists” Kathleen Parker and Cathy Young, who support arguments made by HRS, JamesH, myself and others..."

Which is exactly what I was trying to do. Find women who identified as feminists and supported fathers' rights. Point out that feminism is a broad, robust church, capable of sustaining different viewpoints. Battles within feminism are its strength, not its fault-line.

On this and other matters, HRS has never hidden his disdain for feminists in general and me in particular. Which is fine – all part of the cut and thrust – but which has prompted me to point out that his caricatured straw-woman of feminism bears little resemblance to the real deal. I – and my ilk – absolutely understand the psychological trauma a father must undergo if he feels he's been unfairly treated by a monolith like the Family Court. We know that men in the lowest socio-economic group are the unhappiest cohort in Australia. I resent how men have learnt to feel uncomfortable with children because of cultural fear of pedeophilia.

You also wrote this: "Its main focus is on women, (fair enough) but the liberation/ “betterment” of men is just an afterthought." If it's fair enough, then why all the complaining? It's in feminism's interest to understand men, and if we do it ill, then we should continue to try to get it right. I don't see this as a criticism, but a call to work. HOWEVER, men cannot expect the feminist movement to put them front and centre. Fathers' rights groups do not seek to put mothers front and centre – why would they? But these groups must learn to co-operate - it's in everyone's interest.

dozer, thanks for the comments to HRS. His simplistic and obsessive attitude about feminism sidetracks so many discussions which could be better used to find common ground. As someone who tries to promote better understanding of the damage done by gender bias in application of the family law system HRS's continued posts appear to be a major hindrance to that end.

R0bert

Dozer,
I haven’t called Ronnie Peters a retard, and I haven’t even called CJ. Morgan a retard.

In fact, I’ve called no one a retard.

You will find that feminism is a cult that describes the male gender as being an abuser no matter what the situation, and this can be found in countless feminist documents.

But when it comes to overall abuse of girls in schools, it was found in the US that the most abuse of girls was coming from other girls, (and not from boys) and I would think that this situation would be the same in Australia.

However the way the education system is going, I think that the most abuse and victimisation of boys in future years will be from the teachers.

This is precisely the problem HRS: you're describing feminism as a cult.

You're censoring reasonable feminists out because they don't fit the bogeyman depiction you have for them - under this system you're right in that all feminists are evil stereotypes. You've reclassified the term to only encompass this variety, and written out the rest of the population.

When people come forward with facts and figures that dispute your anecdotes or sweeping generalisations, you just shift the ball entirely.

You've asked me repeatedly to provide you with statistics on how many 'men are violent.'

Yet you've brought forward no empirical evidence at all to support your case. As usual, you don't have backing.

I've told you repeatedly why I don't believe these particular stats exist, and I've presented you with alternative statistics that show quite clearly, that more men are violent than women.

What's more telling, is the fact that I've never argued violent men aren't a minority (nor has anyone else), which is all the 'how many men are violent' statistics can prove.

And yet, the assertion you seem to rebut - that men are more violent than women - is proven quite persuasively in the recent, Australian, statistics I have shown.

But oh no. You won't engage those. Too inconvenient I suppose.

-Inconvenient like the views of the 'unoriginal' claims of the professions at the front line I listed earlier.
-Inconvenient like the views botheration put forward, showing that believe it or not, not all feminists are the fire breathing dragons you describe.

Inconvenient like the many people here who have pointed out that your extreme generalisations and feminist hating (and yes, I'm calling you a feminist hater, but don't go extrapolating that to woman hater or some other tangent) actually do the cause of mens rights more harm than good.

I sincerely hope you're not associated with any reasonable groups pushing for equal rights for men, because your pursuit of feminists would make reasonable people discount your views and that of the group by proxy.

One of the tricks used in gathering data, is to only gather data which supports your thesis.

i.e, gather data about female victims of alleged DV, but ignore collecting data on men who may have been injured in DV.

Warren Farrell in "The Myth of Male Power" wrote that when women stop being victims the research stops.

The next trick is to hide the data or refuse access to the data from researchers who do not share your ideology. Lenore Weitzman did this.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050308115735/www.nojustice.info/Research/ManufacturingResearch.htm

In Perceptions are not facts, various word games are used to confuse.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050313222509/http://www.nojustice.info/PerceptionsarenotFacts.htm

TRTL,

Erin Pizzey in her book 'Prone to violence' wrote that of the first 100 women to her refuge, 60 were as violent or more violent than the men that they had left.

For example if the police only charge men with DV, then it is possible to say 'only men commit DV because the research supports this.'

However just because there is no data, it does not mean that there isn't a problem.

Im afraid there may be some substance behind hrs comment 'feminism is a cult...

One aspect argued in full court of family court was titled 'the madness is the group called women in family separation' in the legal submissions...a unified subverting and acting force develops...with evidence to back up it was said that all women will support the mother to have the child and against the father...be it her friends, as church group, government employees abusing their positions, and even fathers family like sister and mother...and might/will act to corrupt proces to different extents to this achieve said effect...and if judges were judicially aware of this factor, and judicially act to counteract to negate its effects on legal process...

nobody argued against this point...including the three senior judges sitting on the bench,,,its seems its an accepted fact in law...and for those legally inclined read Roberts v Hopwood [1925] AC 578 House of Lords...quote 'nor had the council become such ardent feminists as to bring about at the expense of the ratepayers whose money they administer, sex equality in the labour market...'or by feminist ambition to secure the equality of the sexes in the matter of wages in the world of labour'...and 'There is no provision relative to the nature of the work to be done by the women, or their fitness for it. The minimum wage was to be the same as that of men, however different the nature of work'...see the unbalanced nature...sitting at the table answering customers or walking a narrow plank high in the air carrying bricks was the same in risk, stress and body wear per feminists it seems...

hard to believe...should ask fathers who have experienced the family court...its unbelievable until one see it in action for themselves...a destructive force...devastating to fatherchild

Sam

HRS/Timkins: "I haven’t even called CJ. Morgan a retard"

I haven't called HRS a retard either. Neither have I called him any other offensive term, despite his provocation.

But I have called him Timkins.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=6333

HRS

I never said you called CJ Morgan a retard, although I have rightly called him pathetic on another thread. On http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5212&page=0, Happy Bullet (rightly) called RP a “retard.” (Deleted by the moderator.) My apologies, my memory of the event was wrong, I mistook you for HB. I should have checked the details. However, my criticism stands.

Hello botheration, HRS,

As usual with these sorts of things, I think I agree with each of you, separately, on the fundamentals, but disagree on the detail.

When I criticize “feminism,” I refer specifically to gender feminism/radical feminism. This is the form of feminism most regularly taught at university; its philosophy, that men are inherently vulgar, base, and violent, informs and is reinforced by most “mainstream” research on domestic violence and sexual abuse; and it has the most influence over policy- hence the bias against fathers in the family court, against boys in school, and generally against men regarding domestic violence.

There definitely are women “who identify themselves as feminists” who support fathers’ rights. They cite, and support studies on domestic violence that show that men and women are equally violent. Posters such as JamesH, Robert, HRS, and myself, regularly link to such “dissident feminists.” And these dissidents similarly criticize gender/radical feminism.

I have regularly seen posters criticize feminism, without distinguishing the criticism as relating specifically to radical feminism. Often, a radical feminist (not botheration) will then bring up examples of dissident feminism and argue that feminism is a broad church capable of sustaining different viewpoints. When a radical feminist makes such an argument, I see it as deceptive: radical feminists disagree with dissident feminists 99% of the time, but the dissident strand is useful tool for confounding feminist critics, to make them look ignorant for not understanding the diverse nature of feminism.

I would like to make it very clear that I do not think botheration is doing this. You have made it quite clear that you are more “equity” feminist orientated than the radical kind, and that your defense of feminism is genuine. But one still cannot dismiss criticism of

radical feminism by arguing that feminism is a broad church. Especially as I think radical feminism has a lot to answer for.

Take the case of Erin Pizzey. http://www.celticsurf.net/freeworld/pizzey.html. A worthy resident on Glenn Sacks’ list, she was involved in setting up the very first battered women’s shelter in Great Britain. She realized very early on that many of the women who came to the shelter were themselves violent, and contributed to the cycle of violence in their own abusive relationships. (PLEASE NOTE, there is a very big difference between arguing, as Pizzey has, that some women must share responsibility for the cycle of violence in abusive relationships, on one hand, and suggesting that women who get beaten up had it coming, on the other. I’m sure you understand the difference but there are some, such as Ronnie Peters, who cannot.)

Pizzey envisaged similar shelters for men who needed to espcape from abusive relationships, and advocated treating domestic violence as a health or social issue rather than simply protecting women and punishing men. But the shelters, and the broader issue of domestic violence, were hijacked by radical feminists, determined to portray men as predators and women as victims. (Pizzey, who once considered herself a feminist, has been attacked ideologically and threatened physically by radical feminists.)

As a result, there is little help today for men who find themselves victims of abuse, or in a mutually abusive relationship. Many men do not even realize they are being abused. And abusive women are not encouraged to take responsibility for their own abusive behaviour. Thus, the undue influence of radical feminism on domestic violence policy has led to a biased system, perpetuated suffering, and cost lives.

While dissident feminists are definitely feminists, I would argue that their impact on policy is nowhere near that of radical feminists. Dissidents are however, a key to resolving issues such as DV, sexual assault, the family court bias, and negative attitudes to women and men. We need to challenge the intellectual and political authority of radical feminism, and take a gender neutral, humanist approach to these issues.

Thanks Dozer. It means a lot to me that someone on your side of the fence understands. I have a friend whose ex-partner gave her a black eye - but it is me and two of my (feminist - in one case VERY feminist) friends who believe she should take her fair share of responsibility because she turned up at his place drunk and attacked him. (While several of our male friends simply believe that bloke in question should be hit with the full force of the law.)

I am a feminist because I believe in equity and fairness. But I'm definitely a feminist - you can call me dissendent if you like, but I believe I'm the whole kit and caboodle. It's one reason why, on other threads, I've stuck up for the second generation (of feminists - the 1960s types), now much maligned by younger female ingrates, who forget how recently we got the vote, and were able to own property, and who had any access at all to our children when a family broke down.

But it's because I'm a feminist that fathers like HRS should be talking to people like me - who can get the ear of policy makers, and who may become those policy makers in the future.

So thanks Dozer - I appreciate that you took pains to differentiate me from the more hysterical of my political persuasion.

Well said Dozer, botheration.

I myself was raised by someone who certainly identifies herself as feminist, but doesn't believe in the more hysterical aspects either. Essentially it just meant I got a verbal clip around the ear if I referred to grown women as 'girls' or was disrespectful in broad terms.

It just seems a bit rich when I see vocal opponents like HRS telling me who is and who isn't a feminist.
Especially when they do things like downplay the significance of violence against women - I can understand and respect those who query the statistics or genuinely stand up for mens rights, but I can't abide those who refuse to acknowledge that the situation has partly come about because there are too many men out there who do indulge in domestic violence.
Yes, the radical feminists have an unfair agenda, but yes, there are men who drink to excess and beat their wives.
They're by no means anything other than a minority. I've never said otherwise and I haven't seen anyone else here say that either.

But there's still far too many of them.

That's why I heark back to the professions on the front lines that see these things - it's heartbreaking for ambos to have to see women coming into the emergency room with bruises or black eyes, and despite HRS's commentary, it does happen and pretending it doesn't really does bother me.

I understand that there are a significant number of feminists out there who do have an agenda of attacking men - but I don't believe they're the majority. I think that large tracts of the population, both male and female, identify with the core, reasonable aspects of feminism, and as with all belief sets, there are those on the edges pushing the envelope further than it was meant to be pushed.

dozer, drifting off topic again but my impression has been that the radical feminists are likely to deny someone is a feminst if they give credence to research that does not support the radical agenda.

Maybe sometimes the broad church thing is embraced but the instances I recall the approach has been to treat all research showing similar levels of DV initiation between men and women as flawed and any woman supporting it as not a feminist.

By the way I came across an interesting paper while trying to relocate examples of what I refer to. The paper is not an example it just happened to have some of my search terms within it.

http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/digitaltheses/public/adt-acuvp79.09042006/02whole.pdf I've not read a great deal of it yet but those interested in discussions about feminism, mothering etc may find it interesting.

R0bert

Botheration,
It is rather interesting (and also rather concerning) that feminists have to now call themselves “dissident feminists”. It doesn’t say much for the rest of feminism.

Personally I don’t call myself an “ist”

Turnrightthenleft,
You keep saying that there are far too many males who abuse females, (but of course you haven’t mentioned females who abuse males) so I would like to know how many males there are who abuse females. I would like to know a number or a %, and not statements such as “far too many”, as “far to many” could mean 1 or 1,000,000.

I am rather concerned when the male gender is stereotyped as being an abuser, because I have seen what happens when feminists do sterotype males as being an abuser.

Could you also find a feminist document that says something positive about men, and could you also give an estimated percentage of how many women you have seen with a black eye or physical injury received from a male, out of all the women you have seen in your life.

You have said a lot of negative things about me, so I hope you don’t mind if I ask you these questions, and I hope you don't think that I am being abusive by asking you these questions

TurnRightThenLeft - right on! You rock.

"it's heartbreaking for ambos to have to see women coming into the emergency room with bruises or black eyes,"

TRTL,

unless there has been a change in industrial relations, emergency departments are staffed by nurses and doctors.

So it will be the Doctors and nurses who will see the men and women presenting with bruises and black eyes. The ambos may deliver them to emerg.

And on the scale of things, bruises and black eyes are extremely minor injuries when compared other injuries that other people may present with. Chain saws and circular saws create impressive injuries. Nail guns whilst impressive generally do not do as much damage.

So after awhile unless a bruise is extremely impressive, nobody in the emerg is going to blink twice.

Car accidents do give people rather impressive black eyes. Horses have created some very impressive bruises.

TRTL, what is heart breaking in ED is when some dies, especially when they are young. virtually everything else is business as usual.

There was or still is a research program trying to measure the impact on ED's caused by DV, I do not know what happened to it. At one stage they had to alter the criteria.

Such research paper needs detailed examination if it is ever published.

‘’It's the parents that don't have that respectful relationship that will not successfully share parenting, and it shouldn't be imposed on the kids, particularly when they're not use to the other parent playing such a large role.

Blanket shared parenting is ideological, misinformed, and unfair to children."
Posted by Liz, Saturday, 1 December 2007 7:56:36 PM

Firstly, I suppose it OK then that feminists/feminism has a blanket ideology when it suits.’

James H and Samsaid’s response to my posts assume I’m opining based on a feminist agenda.

I’ve seen men who have been the primary caregivers in their relationships, due to wives who have higher incomes, so their career was focused on rather than the husband’s.

I’ve seen a woman leave her children with the husband and move to a different city, and then turn up later, once she’d gotten her act together, and demand shared care.

In both these cases, I believe the children should remain with the Fathers.

I believe it’s in the best interest of the children to stay settled in their surrounds, and not be unsettled by a parent who has suddenly developed a belated sense of what is ‘fair’.

It’s not fair to unsettle kids based on an ill-conceived perception of ‘fair’.

It’s not about what’s fair to the Mother, or what’s fair to the Father. It’s about what’s fair to the kids.

‘But when it comes to overall abuse of girls in schools, it was found in the US that the most abuse of girls was coming from other girls, (and not from boys) and I would think that this situation would be the same in Australia.’

I’d agree with that HRS, but that’s not what the article is about.

’However the way the education system is going, I think that the most abuse and victimisation of boys in future years will be from the teachers.’

You hate to many people HRS, and are too eager to demonise them.

Maybe it’s you that’s doing the victimising.

Liz,
The Australian education system (or at least the public school system) is becoming very similar to the US system in many areas.

In the US system it is now estimated that about 10% of boys have been put on Ritalin (also called Kiddie Cocaine). This is very often at the recommendation of the teacher, but after a number of years, it is now being found that many of these boys will become addicted o the Ritalin That is widespread child abuse, but that type of abuse is not being recognized for what it is.

The number of male teachers in US is low, and it is likely that there will be few male teachers left in Australian schools in a few decades also. This then creates an environment of likely discrimination and prejudice of the boy students in schools.

The boys in the schools will have almost no representation. Many of them will not have fathers, and there will be few male teachers in the schools to represent them either.

You may want to label me a “hater”, but I’m not so naïve as to believe the females do not show prejudice against males.

How often do you see 1-2 girls with a larger group of boys. It is very common to see this, and the girls will seldom show any anxiety about being with a larger group of boys.

But how often do you see 1-2 boys with a large group of girls. It is rare to see that.

Males seem to instinctively avoid a larger group of females, because they know that they will be henpecked remorselessly

HRS

You wouldn't know

You're talking a load of cr@p.

You are so demonstrative of why some people should never be allowed within an inch of children.

And I'm not going to bother responding any further to someone who is toxic in their hate of women.

Liz,
I have not said anything insulting or abusive about you. In fact I have said elsewhere that you are a democratic, non-feminist and articulate teacher, and this can be easily seen by your posts.

Turnrighthenleft,
You have said many insulting and rather abusive things about me, but you have not been able to answer some simple questions.

Maybe you are having problems finding a feminist document that says something positive about the male gender.

No HRS, I'm having trouble finding a feminist document that says things about the male gender that you'll accept.

Botheration put forward plenty, but you found various reasons to discount them all.

I was absolutely incredulous when you discounted an article because it didn't say anything positive about men, stating:
"The second article was written by a feminist who is complaining about all the negative stereotyping of men that has been carried out by other feminists."

In every case, you've been presented with evidence pointing to the fact that men are more violent than women.

You have never provided anything to back your case. Instead, you just reclassify the situation to suit your view, while demanding others put in the time and effort to provide things, which you then discount and shift the ball.

I never said I believed violent men were a majority, but you kept asking for statistics I don't believe exist, for very clear reasons of classification which I've already explained.

The argument I was making was that men are more physically violent than women. I put forward statistics to prove that, but you never addressed them.

In fact, when you go to any of the police statistics around the country, this is repeated in all of them. It's a stark reality, but again, you just won't engage.

In fact, you've provided nothing except anecdotes throughout this entire post, so I see no reason to continue engaging, when you simply reframe the debate so it suits you and ignore the parts that don't, calling them a range of things, from 'regurgitation' to 'unoriginal' yet you don't provide any backing for your views.

"Liz,
I have not said anything insulting or abusive about you. In fact I have said elsewhere that you are a democratic, non-feminist and articulate teacher, and this can be easily seen by your posts."

I worry about you HRS.

I know that you won't tell us of your personal circumstances (except that you are a father, and I think we can assume you had an acrimonious break-up). But what are you driving at with your posts? What kind of world do you want to see? Do you think feminism should be undone? If so, to what extent? Do you have any practical ideas about how you could work to improve boys education and the other problems you see in society?

I understand that you dislike me and the other "feminists" (male and female) on these forums. But can't we get past that, and start discussing how improvements could be made?

And HRS - you say "I've said many insulting and abusive things about you."

Damned if I'm going to stand by and let you beat your breast about how you've been abused, when it's just that your posts are being put under scrutiny.

I dispute that I've been abusive, and I'll state outright that I think your claims on this score are indicative of an attitude of victimhood.

That whole farce that I'd insulted you with 'ilk' is just one example. An example that every poster has rejected as being a farce and you've not provided any backing to your claims that it is an insult.
In fact, unless you can prove that contrary to what everybody has said, ilk is actually an insult, I think it's you who has been insulting me by misleading what I've been saying.

Lets review what I have said:

a) you have an axe to grind against women.

-I stand by this assertion. All your posts are indicative of this.
Actually, I think the way you twisted my words and said that I've called you a woman hater is more insulting, but hey.

b) you hate feminists.

-HRS: "feminism is a cult that describes the male gender as being an abuser no matter what the situation"

Pretty conclusive.

c) That your posts show you're quick to assume the mantle of victim.

-Exhibit a: the things I'm raising in this post.

d) That you shift the subject when it doesn't suit.

-The police DV statistics I provided... thought about them yet, or are you still waiting until something more suitable comes along? Or is this comment unoriginal?

e) I said you and your "ilk."

-Found anything at all to confirm this is an insult hmm? Somehow, like many of your other claims, I doubt it.
I've seen that word often and never spotted the connotations you claim.

f) Your pursuit of feminists turns people off mens rights groups.

-The responses in this thread have been indicative of this. This is genuine advice, not an insult.

Turnrightthenleft,
You still haven’t given the ACTUAL NUMBERS or % of males who are violent, and you still haven’t provided a feminist document that says something positive about the male gender.

The latter should not be so difficult, as so many feminist spend so much money that comes initially from men.

HRS,

research published by Jordan I. Kosberg wrote in an article titled "Heterosexual Males: A Group Forgotten by the Profession of Social Work."

Of the studies Mr. Kosberg found about men, half were about homosexuals and most of the rest were about men categorized as abusers, absent fathers, AIDS victims, prisoners or homeless.

"Most males are not delinquent, neglectful, abusers, AIDS victims or gay," Mr. Kosberg wrote. Yet in the last 10 years, "just a handful of studies at best" addressed "normative issues" of males.

This creates an "unfair and untrue" stereotype of heterosexual males, Mr. Kosberg concluded. It also handicaps social workers, leaving them ill-prepared to handle the needs of men related to adolescence, fatherhood, employment, marriage, divorce and aging.
http://www.fact.on.ca/news/news0301/wt030108.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20050310221633/www.nojustice.info/Statistics/ManufactureOfDVStatisticsPartI.htm
"This type of data often comes from police or hospital reports, surveys, etc. It can then be further refined through rating, averaging, or other numerical manipulations to provide additional information, trends, etc. to the researcher. Qualitative research is typically more open-ended, such as in-person interviews with study participants that allow them to report freely on an event or idea. Answers to qualitative questions can be coded or analyzed for trends, unique situations or commonalties and generally result in an interpretation of the information.

Researchers are told that they need to ask:

Do the results corroborate the study methodology and participant responses?

The package is an excellent example of how selective use of estimated, but not validated, statistics are used to give misleading information without actually telling a lie. Only by looking deeper into the complete reports and comparing the various research methodologies against each other can one get some glimpse of reality. However, considering the calculated oversupply of "research" reports, which often merely duplicate each other, no one individual has the time to go through them all and thus we are inclined to accept the abstracts which are presented to us from an advocacy perspective. "

TRTL one problem with police reports is that they only record reports made to police, they do not measure the actual incidence of violence.

I have yet to see any author, poster or blogger on this site who denies the reality of female-initiated domestic violence. Hence I feel the continual high-jacking of threads to re-hash this issue intrusive, non-instructive, time-wasting and pointless.

However, it seems to me that it is at least possible that part of the problem arises from two seperate issues that are being conflated here:1) male violence towards woman...across the board 2) domestic violence ...as a seperate issue.

Yes of course society should take a stand against violence of any kind and perpetrated by anyone, male or female. The most physical damage results from male-driven violence - both towards women and towards other men. As TRTL points out, this fact is unsavoury but hardly arguable. Therefore at present there are a preponderance of articles addressing possible cause and probable results and generating many studies, much discussion and the implementing of programmes to provide damage limitation.

Domestic violence is another frightening, disruptive and serious social ill that is being urgently addressed. I am honestly surprised at the continued statements by certain posters that it is "impossible" to find studies or literature on this issue which addresses the growing phenomenon of female culpability: I personally have never had any difficulty accessing sites or interviewing people who are engaged with female-initiated domestic violence.

Now,HRS (and your ilk) if you are really interested in this subject go to pubpages.unh.edu/-mas2/CTS21.pdp which discusses in great detail studies of female initiated domestic violence, the probable causes for the disparity in statistical reporting,the way in which statistical polls vary and why.. and many other issues on which one would imagine you would be eager to find data.

PS Robert
If you haven't read it already I think perhaps you'd find this an interesting link, too.

Romany,
What is very apparent in this thread is the amount of insults, name calling and abuse given out by people who say that men abuse women.

It is likely that the most abuse and victimization of girls in schools is coming from other girls.

In the workplace, and woman is more likely to be abused or injured by another woman than by a man.

In the home, if the domestic violence is not mutual, then it is likely that the woman initiates the domestic violence about 70% of the time.

If there is some type of conflict between a male and a female, then the male is more likely to cause more physical injury, (although I have seen a case of a boy standing with his arms folded waiting for a girl to stop kicking him, while 1 punch from him and she would have stopped kicking him).

You are saying that there is “male violence towards woman...across the board”. This now stereotypes all males as being violent towards females.

So could you state the ACTUAL NUMBERS or % of males who are violent towards females.

Also could you find the elusive feminist document that says something positive about the male gender. I don’t think a “dissident feminist” would count, or a feminist who has written something in an obscure blog site, or someone like Dorris Lessing who has rejected feminism.

HRS you are right when you say most of the abuse of girls is from other girls.

Barbara Lecke conducted a study title TITLE OF PAPER: Girls, Bullying Behaviours and Peer Relationships: TheDouble Edged Sword of Exclusion and Rejection.

There have been a large number of studies into girls bullying behaviour and how they have adapted to using technology to expand their repertoire.

I understand in more recent years that their behaviour has been getting more physical. There was a research paper which showed that prior to this girls usually got the boys to do the physical stuff

JamesH

You and HRS are both right on bullying that takes places between females.

However, that is a completely separate issue to the topic of this thread.

I swear right now I feel sorry for the mens' rights lobby.

You two would slot nicely into those bitchy girls groups.

By the way, mens' rights groups are often run by those bitchy girls you've just spoken about.

Liz,
As a democratic, non-feminist and articulate teacher, you’re now calling other women “bitchy”.

It is intriguing how there is so much name calling and insults from those who believe that there is widespread abuse of females by males.

The author wants to go into schools to lecture boys about not abusing girls, but if the main abuse of girls is coming from other girls, then maybe the author should get their priorities right.

But if there is so much abuse of females by males, could you state the number of males, or the % of males who abuse females.

As a teacher, you must have been trained to answer questions, and I won’t even trouble you to find a feminist document that says something positive about the male gender, as that assignment may be impossible to complete.

Why thank you Liz, I have been called many names before, but not bitchy.

I came across this site today.
http://menscollegeactivist.org/

An article by Psychologist Toby Green kind of made me understand a little bit more about the reason why some women get really, really upset when men do not agree with them.

Basically this has to do with the belief that if someone disagrees with their opinion they then feel that, that person is discounting them as a person.

Hence if people like myself and HRS try to challange manipulative sterotyping we get told that we hate women, which is an effective way of trying to discount the issues that are raised. The only thing is that this is not going to go away any time soon. As demonstrated by the above website younger men too are challanged feminist dogma.

I watched a process happen recently on the morning TV shows. They interviewed a Santa who had been sacked. Apparently Santa said to a child that they had a pretty mummy. One TV show host then said Santa had told the kid they had a hot mum. The facts get distorted and exaggerated.

liz wrote 'By the way, mens' rights groups are often run by those bitchy girls you've just spoken about'...

true liz...and men have caught on to that...and most of these organizations are getting cleaned out...and hopefully the lesson was well learnt...be careful who you let into your 'safe zone'...the principle can be expanded and...for most of us its our homes...make sure they are who they make themselves out to be...

From what i heard for every effective action these organization tried to take, women acted as 'monitoring bases' in these organization feeding the information out...and reality was that they were almost ineffective...though some meant well...

But they were one of the first to get the message of the abuse going on in the family court out to the public...

And to 'feminists'...I note an attempt to separate the some of the aggressive women as the feminists...I diagree with that...I think every woman has 'feminism' in her...just how active she is the organized collective is the variable...but all accept the unbalanced benefits it brought...

Show me a group of women who acted againts the damage 'feminists' were doing to fatherchild and the long term sequale on society...who tried to get the message out to the public and faced the 'music' for it from other women...I couldnt in any media search...I certainly will be interested...it seems this does not exist...amazing isnt it...or is it...

Sam

Sam said,
I think there are some women capable of independent thought. The Independent Women’s Forum in the US seems to be a strong organisation, that attempts to carry out non-biased research and releases some good articles.

In the area of sexual abuse of young women, there is this article.

“One in Four? Rape myths do injustice, too.”
http://www.iwf.org/news/show/19076.html

Unfortunately I know of no such organisation for women in Australia.

hrs I agree some women are capable of independent thought...talking one on one some do have their reservations...my earlier post was refering to them in 'group action' where it is a very different story...and its effects are all around us at the moment...

The way I see things moving...it wont be long before women only have each other...men and children seem to be able to see through to the truth better, work through any deciet, manipulation, dependence creating behaviour etc

I think it will make for a better world...where who the real person is matters the most...and hopefully one day we all move further and will judge each others soul as the most important of persons character...

Sam