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.