Melinda, footballers do seem to come from another planet. I wonder if it is the 'God' like status society affords them that allows this presumption above the law. Or is it one too many kicks in the head on the field?

The so-called decency test on first glance almost appears Monty Python like (even worse than the citizenship test) or a bad joke gone wrong until you read that it is actually for real. Like telling a toddler that if you put your hand in the fire it will hurt. While we worship sport and its heroes in this country I wonder if much will change.

“The AFL wants to help the lads recognise that taking advantage of a woman who’s had too much to drink, doesn’t rank as the noblest decision they could ever made.”

I’ve never been a footballer, nor have I ever molested women, but I imagine that the ‘respect’ this author demands from footballers might be a little harder to summon up in the case of a drunken female who obviously has no self-respect. Where alcohol is involved in the quantities young people now drink, all of the rules go out the door. Words like ‘consent’ and ‘respect’ are meaningless.

We are talking about a mind-altering drug here, albeit a legal one.

“As we approach International Women’s Day on March 8, women’s advocates are forced to face the brutal reality that we haven’t come a long way at all. We may even have gone backwards.”

Yes, you have gone backwards. You’ve gone past the equality stage to become, in many case, even grosser than the type of men you are rightly concerned about. Drunkenness (as mentioned), foul mouths and sexual aggression being the most obvious.

“Is it no longer considered basic human decency, let alone a mark of minimum sexual standards, that you don’t take advantage of someone who is drunk?”

For decent people, yes. But if Melinda Tankard Reist knew as much as she thinks she does, she would know that footballers are not footballers because they are decent or very smart. And, how about this drunk “someone” taking a look at herself, having some self-respect, and not putting herself in the position in the first place.? It’ s like saying that women should be able to walk anywhere at anytime, dressed anyhow, and not be raped. Yes, they should be able to, but knowing they often cannot, they need to use commonsense and not do these things. What you ‘should’ be able to do is no protection.

If sexual harassment has become the norm, as the author suggests, she should try to be helping her own gender, not just rubbishing males.

Oh my goodness Mr Right, as stupid as drunkeness might be for either gender it is certainly not an invitation to rape. Do you understand that this scenario of the drunk female is one that has been created by the AFL for this dvd? While women do get drunk, presenting men's sexual violence in a context of "drunk" women "asking for it" is sexist and grossly misleading. The problem is the predatorial attitude that these men have grown up with, combined with their drunkeness, enourmous egos and the physical strength to overpower a woman if tricking her into sex hasn't worked. they seem to think that if a woman cannot articulate the word "no" then it defaults to a yes. Nobody deserves to be raped, not even when they are drunk. Men do not have a right to sex on demand.

I can't believe that in this day and age, this needs to be stated. No wonder we have problems.

Dave here Firstly if for any reason a man has sex with a woman in an intoxicated state & that woman would not have done that act sober then that becomes statutory rape. the problem is not the rape as the cause it is the woman that places so little repect upon herself to place herself in the position for this to happen the same as a man that says that he was drunk when that other woman got him into bed while he is married it is the mans fault for placing himself in that position. If women want respect then they must resort back to a behaviour that warrants respect. I remember women fighting for equal rights fair enough but it has gone to the point of male domination further women have a Minister for women do men have a Minister for men.It is the age old situation behind every great man there is a woman but the fall of every great king has been for a woman this kind of says it all doesn't it we are to work together not total domination by either
May your Lord shine on you all well
God Bless Dave

perhaps i should blame my parents, for an idea that putting oneself in danger was not merely foolish. it was also antisocial because someone might have to get you out of danger at some risk to themselves.

i don't think a woman has a right to attend a party centered around football players, drink herself into oblivion, and then complain of rape. if she got drunk and climbed into the lion cage at the zoo, she wouldn't get much sympathy for a mauling, surely?

football players aren't lions? the ones who also drink themselves into some mixture of lust, arrogance, and unconcern for anyone's regard outside the change room should be regarded as lions. well, hyenas.

yes, this is rape, and there should be sanctions. whatever the judge thinks is right for the bloke(s), and 3 months in a brat camp for the sheila.

Women such as former Australian hockey players who sell their bodies to smutty magazines for cash do very little towards enhancing how men view women. I have no doubt that many men do need to change their attitudes towards women but many women should not continue to be as naive to believe that their actions don't contribute to these attitudes.

When I think about this it seems that there are two groups of predators stalking each other. We have footy players who have money and fame. Money and fame can be quite useful tools in the search for casual sexual flings and also quite useful in attracting a trophey wife.

We have women who would like some of that money and fame, who would like the opportunity to have their picture on the news in a designer gown, who would like the big house and the BMW. They would like to rub shoulders with the famous. Snaring a footy player might be their set for life ticket.

Two groups preying on each other. I'm happy to agree that the values of men who use women like this a abhorent to me. There is no respect in treating women as a commodity. Sex without a reasonable basis to be confident that consent is given is rape. Trying to trap men into being a set for life ticket shows a similar lack of respect. Using your body as bait to catch a man shows a remarkable lack of self respect.

I think that members of both groups have a fair idea of the game that they are playing.

It may be of value to the footy codes to try and instill some better values into footy players.

As a community we just maybe we could have a look at some of the cultural values that make footy players seem a lot better catch than those in less recognised, less well paid positions and the values that cause a certain look in a woman to appear of higher value.

Is it just conincidence that all the cricket wives shown on TV at the recent awards ceremony looked quite similar.

R0bert

"This culture has been written about widely. College women -- as well as men -- reportedly drink heavily before and during parties. For the women, that drinking is often goal-oriented, suggests Karin Agness, a recent University of Virginia graduate and founder of NeW, a club for conservative university women: It frees the drinker from responsibility and "provides an excuse for engaging in behavior that she ordinarily wouldn't." Nights can include a meaningless sexual encounter with a guy whom the girl may not even know."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-mac_donald24feb24,0,1096037,full.story

I am soooooooo glad I am not 18 anymore.

"Rape is a very serious crime that carries a deservedly heavy sentence, and so it’s important that guilt is proven ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’. Rape should be distinguished from everyday, messy sex - sex that is regretted; sex that you didn’t really want but went along with; sex that you were too drunk to remember.

In cases of rape - forced sex - there should be no confusion among the parties about the fact that a crime has been committed. The government’s sex education programme can only sow seeds of confusion."
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/243/

I would suspect that perhaps the fairest thing to do would be to somehow try to educate people (men and women) about how to get their needs meet safely, basically it comes down to two things, men want sex and women might if she chooses give it to them.

Otherwise we should just keep males and females separated, especially if they are single, just like they do in some muslim countries or maybe provide a chaperone at all parties where there is alcohol.

Big-time footie players usually start as young boy footie players. Its here, I think, that the matter should start to be addressed.

Naturally I can't speak for the whole of Australia but those footie clubs I do know about all work on the same principle: make a man outta them. Admirable, if one's definition of a man encompasses fairness, compassion, truth...and all of those good things. But translated by many clubs it simply means "make a loutish brute outta them".

I know of one coach whose way of disciplining kids was to make them strip off and run round the field in their jocks. At the age of 12 when acne, too much or too little testosterone results in huge hormonal differences, being over or underweight can all cause feeling of shame and embarrassement, this worked well. It took two years to get this coach sacked and by then the kid who had brought this to my attention had tried to suicide.

Calling boys "ladies" when they aren't playing well, screaming at them when they are losing that they are playing "like a mob of girls", turning a blind eye to under-age drinking and mastubatory games in the change room, are all regarded as part of the "culture". By the time they hit the under 17/18 games the only thing they know about etiquette is to vomit up Saturday night's excess OUTSIDE the goal posts in a Sunday game!

The average club member, when asked about these practices, doesn't take them seriously: they are a rite of passage. "Ah, we all went through it. Didn't do us any harm" they grin. Except that they end up having to be shown DVDs on how to behave

Romany,

For once I have to agree with you. It is a great game with an atrocious culture. Having had boys involved in footy for years I am and was sickened by much of its culture. Parents on the sideline (women being among the worse) scream obscenities at players and umpire. Foul language is the norm and alcohol abuse begins with many of the players well under the legal age.

I might be lucky, because I don't drink and I've never been interested in VFL.

But if a man has been drinking, and has sex with a woman who has not been drinking, then will she be charged with rape?

Or, if a man has been drinking, and has sex with a woman who has not been drinking, then will he be charged with rape?

Or, if a man has not been drinking, and has sex with a woman who has not been drinking, then will he be charged with rape?

Or, if a man has not been drinking, and she has not been drinking, and he has not had sex with her, then will he still be charged with rape?

Its becoming very confusing.

bwahahahahahaha.

Damned if ya do and damned if ya dont.

Keep up the vascilating encouragement melinda. Its trooly inspirational as a male to get your sort of support.

I thought Melinda made eminent sense.

As to most of the posts, please come back to reality. Really, the AFL DVD is an insult to women. How can a culture even ask such questions unless it is a deeply corrupted one?

Taking advantage of a drunk woman is rape.

Most rapes are not reported. Of those that are most do not end in conviction because in some cases of the stress the ordeal puts on the woman.

While I'm no fan of the way footballers behave off the field, I think Melinda Tankard Reist has once again overdone it somewhat. She credits women with no agency in their collaboration in the admittedly sometimes tawdry behaviour she describes.

I have no doubt that many, if not most, footballers behave like utter pigs sometimes - adrenaline, testosterone, alcohol (etc) and adulation undoubtedly contribute. But I also have no doubt that there are plenty of women out there who are only too happy to participate in the gang bangs etc that have been part of footy culture until very recently.

At least the DVDs that Reist derides are an attempt to address the issue seriously. What does she propose - that we ban football and any other overtly masculine sports lest they express popular sexual relations (however tasteless or unfortunate they may be)?

I don’t agree that the AFL DVD is a rude wake up call on the state of male-female relationships in the 21st century.

From a pragmatic perspective the AFL has taken a proactive step in providing these testosterone filled young lads with scenario’s that are quite likely to occur and in turn facilitates an open a discussion. Any attempt at educating and stimulating discussion can only be a good thing.

Remember, these young lads are just that-young lads. Their bodies might be mature but their minds have not quite caught up yet. They will be exposed to many new experiences in the AFL and being surrounded by adoring females is simply one factor and temptation. Spelling out what is expected of them is essential, it's not an option.

The article goes on to state “Examples of increasing contempt for women are everywhere…... girls describe being called “boobs on a stick” by boys at school.”

My response to this? Where in the hell are the parents? I am the mom of 2 boys and I certainly hope I am teaching them to respect girls. If I ever received feedback that one of my boys showed an ounce of disrespect for a girl they would get a clip around the ear, they will need to apologize face to face with the aggrieved party and then be grounded until they are 30. (Considering kids don’t leave home anymore this could be quite feasible) No mucking around here.

Conversely, young women need to be taught exactly what sexual harassment is. They need to respect themselves enough to be very upfront with the lads on what is and isn’t acceptable. Again, the parents must be actively involved in getting the message home.

Unfortunately, the desire to appear ‘cool’ and to be accepted by peers is an inherent problem with most young people and they do not really fully understand what its all about, they have the L plates of life on. It is the pursuit of coolness and peer accecptance that lets their good sense down. There is hope though .…isn’t there?

I wonder why I have not read anything here about women, taking advantage of drunk young blokes.

I think many of these women know damn well, what they are doing, & get exactly what they want.

Perhaps we should have a video teaching young women that collecting footballers "scalps" is not very ladylike. Anyone who thinks that this is not happening, in more than a few of these caese, needs a reality check.

Great article Melinda!

Seeing our girlfriends, wives and daughters, harassed by footballers, and taken advantage of in such devious ways, is deeply concerning – just very confused about where to aim my disgust, and whom to educate.

Many years ago one of my girlfriends, we were teenagers, told me how herself and another couple of girls would go out to a pub and leave the hotel with a drunken older man who thought he had got lucky. When they got him outside they would roll him and take his money. I thought this was a terrible thing to do. They seemed to think that because he was drunk and an "old perve" it was ok and he deserved what he got. Seems to me like the same rationalization some men are using here, blaming the victim. Because someone is vulnerable, even if it is self-inflicted, does not condone predators assuming carte blanche.

I'm wondering if those who seem to think it is the woman's fault for putting themselves in these situations and then getting assaulted would have the same attitude if some young AFL footballer was to pass out drunk and be found by a few blokes who were that way inclined and then taken advantage of?

I doubt it.

Would we then hear runner condemning the near naked male calenders of football stars?

Again I doubt it.

And do you think the victim of the assualt would be thinking "Hell I deserved that, that will teach me for getting so pissed that I passed out".

Now that I really doubt!

The fundamental problem is the public adulation given to sporting stars. Let's teach our children that well-coordinated thuggishness is not a skill worthy of admiration or imitation, and that toxic culture will evaporate. It's been considered passe for years to allow children to play with toy guns: let's extend that to footballs, tennis rackets and the other implements of competitive sports.

I think some people are missing the point. If someone was to burgle your house and take away some of your most valued possessions and it turned out that you had inadvertently left a window open, this does not excuse the thief just because you made entry easier.

Same applies to a drunk person who does not possess sound reasoning to indicate consent. While we might all say well she was stupid for becoming drunk around footballers Oh and she posed nude for a girlie calendar (as though somehow this implies a green light to rape) this does not diminish the crime. Rape would seem a strong punishment for stupidity.

While most footballers are not in line for academia, it is not rocket science. Rape is when there is no consent. If any man or woman who jumps into bed with a comatose drunk does not believe what they are doing constitutes rape then they are only fooling themselves

Pelican
Dave here that is exactly what I am saying you don't take advantage of a person just because they are drunk or drugged out but the thing is it is time to get some morality into this world. I have shared a bed in my younger days with a woman who slept naked & another that had her pants on & we slept in the same bed without anything happening & we were all drunk further I always asked a woman if she wanted to go home with me at the start of the night while she was sober & if she said no that was it Some of those women asked me years later why I just didn't do what the others did & wait til they got drunk They said no sober so to then take advantage of them drunk would be rape but I am the lowest scum going because I have been to gaol.
May your Lord shine on you all well
From Dave

Personally I have only heard of one case of a footballer being charged with rape, and I'm not sure if they were ever convicted. Alcohol was involved, and both were drunk.

There was a case in recent years where a number of footballers in a rugby league team were accused of rape, but after intensive investigation by many police, not one player was ever charged. However the club’s reputation was ruined, they lost major sponsorship, and there were a number of resignations from management.

There have been a number of male coaches in recent times accused of assault of the women they were coaching, but I don't think one has been ever been charged, although their careers were normally ruined after the allegation was made.

I cannot understand how clubs allow their professional players to drink excess alcohol, as even a hangover would affect the player’s game. In industry there are jobs where the employee has to have 0.0 blood alcohol content, and one would expect similar from professional players.

I would think that most of the allegations being made of professional football players are exaggerated, but any drinking or drug taking should be outlawed.

And on another thread HRS claims he has never seen an older man driving a sportscar with a young blond.

Much mirth and hilarity.

Thanks HRS(timkins)

If ya leave the window open and get burled, sure, dont blame the victim.

Just dont tell the insurance company and dont expect sympathy.

And dont be surprised when people roll their eyes at your lack of awarness at your own complicity.

All care and no responsibility doesnt sell well.

By all means, keep going out while leaving the window open and woundering why the house gets burgled.

And shout at, ridicule and insult anyone with the fool hardy courage to point at the smoking gun in the hand of the someone who just shot their foot off. Including, and especially the rapists who seem to enjoy shooting at themselves.

Johny Rotten (and I hope you don't think I'm being abusive by calling you this)

False allegations can be a form of rape.

In another forum, there was a self proclaimed feminist who was inferring that divorced fathers drive around in red sports cars with a female blond half their age beside them in the car.

Of all the cars I see on the road, I rarely see a red sports car, and never have I seen an older man in a red sports car with a young female blond by their side.

There seems to be some allegations that VFL players rape women, so exactly how many VFL players have raped women?

Or are these allegations similar to the allegation that divorced fathers drive around in red sports cars with a female blond half their age beside them in the car.

Oh dear it looks like this subject is all the rage at the moment.

Sex is for joy, not for judgment
http://www.smh.com.au/news/books/author-on-being-labelled-a-slut/2008/02/29/1204226986795.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2

Anybody know anything about chemical castration?

""Culturally there is still a fairly narrow set of assumptions about what women should be, and young girls fall into those traps. They think they have choices but they do not realise how limited their choices can be."'

Somehow they missed out on mentioning and especially here in OLO that there is a very narrow set of assumptions about men and what they should be like.

HRS: "False allegations can be a form of rape"

Complete, unadulterated crap. Alleging falsely that rape has occurred is reprehensible and illegal, but it's not rape.

I see Timkins is maintaining the standards of debate that we know so well from him. Utter garbage.

Just like false attribution of paternity is not paternity.

HRS
Good grief! You certainly know how to twist what is written to suit your own anti-women agenda.

Given that HRS is talking about me (re the red car scenario) anyone reading read the article in question ‘A decent proposal’ will see that I was making a humorous response to HRS's satirical marriage proposal post which implied women only marry men for the purposes of fleecing them at some time in the future.

Then read my second post on that thread which was obviously ignored by HRS because it might work against his own bitter view of the world.

Obviously you think it is perfectly alright for you to slur women and make out they are all money-hungry. Bit hypocritical.

You don’t know me from a bar of soap yet you announce that I am a self-proclaimed feminist - please show me the post where I have stated anything like that. What nonsense. I stand for human rights which last time I looked included men, women and children (and animal rights).

HRS? Telling lies and misrepresenting the opinions of others? Well who woulda thunk it?

Talking about false allegations, on the other thread Pelican is referring to, you claimed the situation in 30-50% of marriages is that the wife "will have one or more children and seek a divorce. Then [she] will get most of the assets and allow [the ex-husband] to see the children every second weekend, as long as [he] pays [her] money. [She] will also call [him] a deadbeat dad and an absent father."

You say you've never seen a middle-aged man with a younger wife. Well, I've honestly only seen one situation even remotely like this. (Except in that situation the ex-husband has successfully avoided paying most of the child-support he owes, and fails to turn up to scheduled visits.) Most couples I know are still together, and those that aren't seem to have nutted out - through much compromise and generosity - equitable and mutually satisfying arrangements to care for their children. While I know situations are you describe them happen, it seems unlikely that 30-50% of all marriages end this way. So could we have a source of this statistic please? I don't mean how many marriages end in divorce, I mean the stats for the situation you've outlined.

Vanilla,
I’m not that well equated with VFL, but exactly how many VFL players rape women?

Is it the same number as the number of divorced fathers who drive around in a red sports car with a young blond half their age (or basically 0.0%).

Without being able to quote any actual statistics - anectdotal evidence would suggest that there are probably more divorced men driving around with women half their age than VFL players that have raped women.

Well that we know about anyway.

Pelica,
Well in that case, VFL players who rape women must be extremely rare (perhaps less than 0.01%).

So that clears up that feminist attempt to villify men.

Vanilla and pelican, meet HRS/Timkins - one of OLO's most long-serving misogynist trolls. There's no point in trying to reason with this sock puppet.

If you look at not only HRS's posting history, but also at his erstwhile incarnation as "Timkins" before he was banned (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=6333), I'm sure you'll realise that there's little point in taking him seriously.

Clearly the poor bugger feels aggrieved at his post-marital situation, but if you read the crap that he posts here it's hardly a wonder that he finds himself in it.

One of my sisters was in a relationship which was well on the skids. In desperation she concocted a plan which involved offering herself to be "designated driver" for a function thus allowing him, as usual, to drink himself almost catatonic. They had sex after that event, an activity he has no recollection of. She achieved her desired end, which was pregnancy, in the knowledge that his very traditional family would insist he marry her. She brags about this to this day, even in his presence.

Now class, can you say "power and control"? Can you spell "rape"?

For the whacker who called this form of rape "statutory" buy a dictionary. Statutory rape involves those below the age of consent.

Speaking as somebody who has lived in a similar spotlighted situation to footballers and other celebrities I can assure all that there is no shortage of drunken women who will quite aggressively make their interests known. Many of them don't much like being knocked back either. I was once sexually assaulted by one of these women in retribution for turning her down. Why would footballers need to rape when their are literally dozens lining up and begging for an opportunity? I am always extremely sceptical of rape claims I hear surrounding any well known individual.

Yes, I was willing to listen to HRS until he point blank refused to accept that unfortunately, men do, on average, commit more domestic violence than women (and I'm talking about physical violence here, as shown in the police statistics for assault from men against women).

Then when he refused to believe that any feminist could possibly be right about any matter relating to gender relations it entered the realm of caricature.

I was and still am particularly interested in the many fallacies he employs to maintain his ignorance and reject evidence that doesn't jibe.
There's quite an array of farcical tactics he uses, but I think I've seen them all now so he's not as entertaining.

Though I'll take this opportunity to warn you that he'll probably attempt to get you to go and find evidence to refute him (while refusing to collect anything to back up his weird views) then when you do, he'll find a way to reject the information by narrowing the field of what he'll accept.

There's a number of ways to do this 1) he can find source material adjacent to what you present and criticise that instead (i.e. instead of reading the article you show him, find another article on the site and criticise that).
2) Ignore it altogether and insist that unless you find an incredibly specific piece of data, he must be right, even if what you show proves he isn't.
3) Give some anecdote with no backing and claim it's a valid counterpoint to stats or referenced incidences.

There's plenty more but I'm running out of room. HRS does make a fascinating case study for those interested in critical reasoning and commonly employed fallacies though.

For a long time I didn't want to tar him as a misogynist, but when he refuses to accept any feminist could have anything worthwhile to say, he's not just criticising feminism, he's criticising the concept of women wanting to be equal or have rights, and that most certainly is misogyny.

Thanks for the introduction CJ Morgan.

I don't know the ins and outs of OLO but am learning :).

I think I will go with the ignore option now that I am wiser. OLO is about opinions and people will sometimes disagree, but if there is no reasoning or logic in debate probably not much point in flogging a dead horse.

However, it is always sad to see people so affected by the things that happen in their lives sometimes you have to forgive and move on for your own peace of mind and quality of life.

TLTR, there is at present a Dissident DV conference in the US.
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1829
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1822

It has researchers such as Donald Dutton and others I do not know of. Erin Pizzey is also presenting.

"From Ideology to Inclusion: Evidence-Based Policy and Intervention in Domestic Violence"

Turnrightthenleft,
So how many VFL players rape women.

Is it 100%, 10%, 1%, 0.01%, 0.001%, or less than 0.001%?

@TurnRightThenLeft

You refer to police statistics as evidence of rates of abuse. Where do you stand with regard to rape/sexual abuse advocacy that consistantly draws attention to high rates of non-reporting?

When you refer to "domestic violence" are you including children or are you refering only to abuse between adults?

Melinda

I love your articles. They are always refreshing and challenging.

You are right of course: rape is always rape and no amount of our former local mullah's protest and defence about 'meat and bait' in any guise is justifiable.

I'm older and although no angel in my youth I always recognised and adopted a gentlemanly manner towards the women I encountered regardless of their demeanour or state. I found that totally rewarding and satisfying.

I still do.

I think perhaps lessons in manners and charm, given their effectiveness, would work better than threats and warnings.

Yep I'm smilling.

regards.

ps Melinda, does Paekakariki mean anything to you?

After reading several comments here - it is clear that many here are apparently happy with the double standard that now endangers a man to be charged with rape if it is LATER found that the woman in question was 'too drunk' to give consent. Contrast the law with the fact that should a woman drive her vehicle while drunk and end up killing other road users or pedestrians she will be held very much responsible for her actions - however if she goes out with a guy flirts with him all night and gets drunk and has intercourse with him she won't be held responsible if she has had over the 'limits'!! Anyone else see the self serving double standards here or is it just me??

Elk - have you dated several footballers - enough at any rate to justify your thinly veiled accusation that 'sexual violence' against women by footballers is rife? What evidence do you have for this - the DVD you refer to was about not SEDUCING their mates girlfriends not RAPING them as you seem to be implying. Do you understand the difference between seduction and rape or are you one of those Andrea Dworkinites that think all sex with men is rape?

The difference is Tigerman that a woman who is drunk driving a car and kills someone is at fault - she is the one that has killed ie. committed a criminal act.

In the other version where the drunk woman is raped she is not the perpetrator, the rapist is.

Rape means sex without consent. If the woman consented then it is not rape. If the woman consented and then cried rape this is not rape it is a false allegation. If the woman was drunk and could not give consent then this is rape. If a woman is flirting and does not give consent this is still rape (flirting is not a crime and even if it was rape would seem an over-the-top punishment). The rules apply equally to men who are raped - there is no difference.

It is pretty straightforward.

pelican said...
"The rules apply equally to men who are raped - there is no difference."

Then why is this not stated in any of the advocacy or outreach? Why are men not alerted to this? Is mens' consent somehow viewed as less important than that of women? Note that your description prior to this statement used exclusively (female)gendered terms. You added men only as an afterthought.

In the example I gave earlier the man concerned was not simply a rape victim. He lost control of his entire future due to that act. That is why I mentioned power and control. This is a form of rape committed as easily by women as by men. Women have the additional - over and above that of sexual gratification - motivation of pregnancy and, at least, some consequent degree of control over their victim for several decades. The long term consequences of rape are far greater for a man than for a woman. Nobody forces female rape victims to become parents.

It may interest you to know that several western nations allow women who have committed statutory rape of boys as young as twelve to collect child support from their victims. I am currently trying to find out if Australia does the same. You can rest assured that an adult male rape victim would be treated in the same way.

No Pelican you are 'demolishing' an argument that Tigerman did NOT make. He was talking about a scenario whereby the act of a woman getting drunk then later having sexual intercourse with her date could be treated *AS* having been raped because the law now deems a woman *over the limits* of being incapable of giving consent thereby putting any man who had sex with her (even though he may be as drunk or even more so than her) in danger of being prosecuted for the very serious crime of rape.
In the other scenario where she is DRIVING under the influence of alcohol and kills people she is conversley held FULLY RESPONSIBLE for her actions. In both scenarios she gets drunk - in one case she is held responsible for her actions whilst drunk in the other case she is deemed incapable of responsibility because her capacity for volitive action is legally anulled. In other words she is treated as an adult if she is drunk and driving a vehicle yet she is treated as a little child if she is drunk and driving her own body!! How screwed up is that!! Tigerman (my BF) was unable to respond as he has exceeded his posting limit. However, I am posting this on his behalf as we have discussed this issue and I know the point he was trying to make.

Thanks HRS for the fine example of asking for stats that don't exist as if this somehow supports your case.

I'll file that one under category: 2).

(Childish statistic games HRS can play to make people ignore the fact that I'm trying to pretend women are more physically violent than men, even though when they stop and think about it, they realise that's pretty stupid).

Gwallan, I'm referring to domestic violence in general. I posted some stats from NSW police, which are echoed at all the police statistical collections. For more on that, visit here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6633#100325

As far as underreporting goes, there's probably some of that, though I'd hazard a guess that it's more likely that more violence from men is underreported.

I've no doubt you can ask any police officer with any real experience on the job and they'll tell you it's men who are causing most of the fights in bars and committing physical violence against spouses.
Yes, there has been a worrying rise in female violence, but it's still nothing compared to the blokes.

Note here, I'm not talking about emotional or psychological abuse. I've no idea about either of those.

Also note that HRS just asks other people to gather evidence, despite the fact that his views are the bizarre ones. He's not only intellectually dishonest, but he's lazy, and damned if I'll scurry around for someone who refuses to do anything himself to justify his misogynist views.

Turnrightthenleft,
I think calling someone "childish", "bizare","stupid"."lazy" and "misoginst" is a form of verbal abuse.

As a feminist, do you liker verbal abuse?

I've never heard of a VFL player being charged and convicted with with rape, so as a rough estimate, how many VFL players rape women?

TLTR, since you stick to strictly reported statistics when coming to your conclusion on DV, then are we to assume that represents the whole and it or rape are never unreported or any false claims added to the statistics?

I have been involved in law enforcement and I can assure you that it is not mostly men committing DV. The problem is that the entire system is setup to help women and even many western countries define DV in such a way to try and prevent women from being arrested for it. I gave up since I got tired of being yelled at by the prosecutors when I would arrest a woman who was obviously the perpetrator instead of the man or at least both.

As to the actual topic, try getting a woman prosecuted in most any western nation for rape even when it involves drugs and a minor. Usually she will get tons of sympathy, mental health help with the excuse she has emotional problems and maybe a few months in jail. A man on the other hand can be drunk, have a woman take advantage of him and later she can flat lie about her and his consensual sex putting him through a living hell. The few studies I have found on this were done in the USA and they found 25$ on average were flat lies of rape reported to the police. Excuses such as to cover an affair, protect their reputation or revenge for his dumping her were the most common reasons. It is a legal form of rape against that male because no matter what it is on his record for the public to see, he will face death threats, the police will ignore his rights to try and nail him and much more. Try being on the receiving end on a false accusation and you will find out it id VERY comparable to a woman being raped.

Here are links to stats for you.

http://www.cmrlink.org/social.asp?DocID=276
http://www.sexcriminals.com/library/doc-1002-1.pdf
And here are a few HUNDRED studies showing women commit DV more than men.
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

HRS, I notice you keep asking TRTL for statistics, when you ignored my call for statistics earlier. I'll restate it. You have said that in 30-50% of marriages the wife "will have one or more children and seek a divorce. Then [she] will get most of the assets and allow [the ex-husband] to see the children every second weekend, as long as [he] pays [her] money. [She] will also call [him] a deadbeat dad and an absent father."

Do you have statistics to back this up? It just seems unlikely, given the entire divorce rate in Australia is only around 30%, and women instigate only around 40% of those divorces. (Men instigate around 30%, around 30% are joint instigations.)

Even if you've got that bit wrong, perhaps you could give us your evidence for claiming that, in divorce, women get "most of the assets".

See the Australian Bureau of Statistics
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/ProductsbyCatalogue/F356DBB7EA7A96EECA256F10007B6B1A?OpenDocument

TurnRightThenLeft. "I was willing to listen to HRS until he point blank refused to accept that unfortunately, men do, on average, commit more domestic violence than women"

This is somewhat off topic but are you aware of serious research which verifies that "men do, on average, commit more domestic violence than women"?

- Research which ensures that findings are not a difference in gender approach to reporting DV?
- Research which does not use as a baseline assumptions about the genders, power in relationships, gender honesty etc?
- Research which really asks the questions rather than starting with the assumption that men are responsible for most DV and then doing logical gymnastics to prove it?

The serious reseach which I've seen which attempts to find the answer to the question shows that women actually physically assault partners slightly more often than men. That has been the case for many years and across much of the "western" world. At the extreme end of the scale women do more often suffer serious injury as a result of physical DV than men (one of the documents I've referenced suggests 6 to 7 times more likely, other material I've seen suggests 2 to 3 times more often ).

Three documents which I consider independant
http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/dom/heady99.htm
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/170018.pdf
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/5/941 (just an abstract but relevant)

Material which with an advocacy feel to it but which is useful
http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/factoid/factoid.html
http://www.safe4all.org/essays/2page.html
http://www.ncfmla.org/gelles.html
http://www.mediaradar.org/research.php#waj

R0bert

On the radio this morning was a statement that America was still, after all this time, predominantly sexist, more sexist than racist. I disagree: one only has to read the pap here to realise that Australia probably would vie for the title of 'most sexist society' . The article points out that women are still largely being victimised by men, in many forms, and the posts certainly have provided the proof. Oh, we get the 'poor little bloke me, me missus did me wrong' nonsense as somehow providing proof that the majority of men are being bashed and victimised and their voices are being ignored. With the occasional policeman to support it. The article deals with over-testosteroned blokes who need lessons, delivered in almost kindergarten fashion, to get them, obviously underendowed with brain-power, to realise that they shouldn't treat women in the ways they obviously do, or hold them in the low regard they obviously do. Is it uncommon? I mean, do footballers have the monopoly on sexist behaviour? No. Okay. Not every woman is an angel. But the stats clearly show it is men who perpetrate the most violence on women, and no matter how one sludges the figures, that has not changed from the time that stats started being kept. Most of the sexual predatory crimes are perpetrated by men. Most of the crimes relating to the rape of chilren are perpetrated by men. Most of the domestic violence is perpertrated by men. The majority of murders are of women, and most murders have been perpetrated by men. Let's be clear about this, fellas. Until you take the situation in hand yourselves, and start behaving the way decent folk do, stop the whingeing. The author makes some of the most cogent arguments I have heard for some time and YOU ARE JUST NOT LISTENING. Now, listen up: wake up to yourselves. Start behaving like real men, like decent men. Take lessons. Go to courses on behaviour modification if necessary. But understand that the days of knock-down, drag-em-by-the hair-to-the caves is over. The lady makes sense and is right.

Hear hear arctic dog.

gwallan

Of course a man’s consent is important - why wouldn't it be? If the man you speak of cannot remember the incident then clearly he did not give consent. The laws governing rape do not distinguish between a male victim or a female one. Did the person you speak about ever report the crime to the police? There are male advocacy groups and rape crisis centres provide the same support and counselling for all victims of rape regardless of age or gender.

The link below is from the UK but outlines some of the myths about male rape which sometimes diminish the impact of rape on men, the second link is from an American Rights Watch group about the rape of men in prisons.

http://www.aest.org.uk/survivors/male/myths_about_male_rape.htm

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/prison.htm

Skipgrrl (on behalf of Tigerman)

I do understand what you are trying to argue regarding the drunk woman behind the wheel of a car and a drunk woman being raped but I don’t think it is at all fair to compare the two incidents in terms of responsibility.

Everyone knows that when you drive intoxicated you are risking not only your own safety but those of others. This is what makes the drunk driver (male or female) culpable ie. for obvious reasons it is against the law to drink and drive. It is not against the law to drink and party no matter how stupid or risk taking in some circumstances.

Should a drunk woman or man at a party be raped she/he is no less a victim because of their drunken state and being drunk does not legitimise rape.

Your argument implies (unintentionally I am sure) that unless a woman is sober a rape charge is not warranted.

For heaven's sake rape is rape.

R0bert - I'd be willing to envisage the number of incidents being somewhere even, though I don't quite believe it. It doesn't match the reality as stated by those on the front lines.
I'll concede it's possible however.

However, I'd say that this is largely irrelevant if the severity of DV incidents by men tends to be greater, as is pointed out in the statistics you cite.
If men and women have roughly equal amounts of DV for minor incidents, but men are committing more of the brutal bashings, then isn't that enough?

TurnRighThenLeft, I'd be happy to take this to a new thread if you want to discuss it at length but in response to your post.

What some of the stats do show is that serious harm is more likely to occur in situations where there is reciprical violence http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/5/941 "Regarding injury, men were more likely to inflict injury than were women, and reciprocal intimate partner violence was associated with greater injury than was nonreciprocal intimate partner violence regardless of the gender of the perpetrator." I've seen similar elsewhere.

One conclusion I draw from that is that by ignoring situations where women hit men we place women at greater risk of serious harm. I've also been on the receiving end of regular violence from a partner and I know the pain of not being able to get any support in getting it stopped.

The whole DV issue is spoken about for all levels of abuse not just the extreme end yet despite that female initiated violence is totally played down.

Even if the serious harm rates are 1 in 7 why do we see no government funded adds telling women not to hit men? Don't those 1 in 7 count? If the lower level physical violence is not an issue then why do the adds target it when it happens to women but not when it happens to men?

See the Qld Health website for an example of how the issue gets played

http://www.health.qld.gov.au/violence/domestic/default.asp
"DOMESTIC VIOLENCE is the physical, sexual, emotional or psychological abuse of trust and power between partners in a spousal relationship.

Most (85% to 98%) domestic violence is perpetrated by men against women."

There are a lot of reasons to ignore HRS but a refusal to accept the mantra that DV is a male problem is not one of them.

R0bert

I have watched the exchange with you and Tigerman and it seems (to be fair to Tigerman) that you still have not grasped his point. For example the law is NOT equal for both sexes on this issue - whereas it can now be deemed that a woman was incapable of giving consent to sex when drunk - the same is not true for a man! This means that a couple can have an evening out together get drunk and although the woman may have given explicit consent at the time for sexual intercourse that consent can be regarded later as having NOT occurred if it can be established that she was drunk. This is the case even though both parties may have been equally drunk the man does not have a defence of claiming that since he was drunk he couldn't have given consent for sex either. Note that Tigerman did not talk about a case where an actual rape had occured - he was talking about an new obscenity and double standard in the law where the burden of proof for rape has been lowered so far so as to include situations where no ACTUAL RAPE may have occurred at all. Like Tigerman said - in another scenario should a drunk woman drive a car and kill someone rather than drunkeness being any form of mitigation or proof of 'victimisation' the exact opposite occurs!! If women enjoy being treated like children in one situation and adults in another then fine and good but on no account should the sudden absolution of responsibility in certain situations be used to PERSECUTE an otherwise potentially innocent man.

Vanilla,
Your questions have nothing to do with the topic, but you could ask your questions on another forum.

You have also said many abusive things about me and various others. It is difficult to determine who is the most abusive feminist. You, Turnrightthenleft or C. J Morgan.

You could have a competition to find out who is the most abusive feminist on OLO.

Artic dog,
According to various archeologists, very few people have ever lived in caves, and prehistoric man nearly always lived in villages or man made shelters.

I also don’t think it is possible to drag someone by the hair, so how many men have dragged women off to caves by the hair?

Is it the same number of men as VFL players who rape women?

@TurnRightThenLeft...and pelican

I must admit my knowledge base is primarily in the area of child sexual abuse. I've only delved into intimate partner or domestic abuse as a tangent to this.

Regarding research...

Virtually all the research referenced in current abuse advocacy starts from a premise that there are no male victims and proves this by not talking to men at all. A good example of this can be seen in the 2004 and 2005 reports on intimate partner violence produced by VicHealth. Interestingly the 2005 ABS personal safety survey shows men as at least a third of the victims of intimate partner violence. The same mid nineties ABS survey interviewed only women and was widely referenced by advocacy groups. Notably the 2005 survey is NEVER referenced.

Could I suggest you look at the work of Murray Strauss(http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/), long recognised as one of the world's foremost researchers in this field. Several of his recent efforts are international in scope and include Australia.

Strauss reports that female victims report to authorities at a rate twenty times greater than that of male victims.

TRTL you seem to be asserting the opposite. That female victims are less likely to report.

Why would male victims report? They are not taken seriously at all. Even boys who report being sexually abused by women(a quarter of all child sex victims) are pilloried in our culture let alone men who are physically assaulted by a woman. Additionally all the existing advocacy and outreach is targeted at women as victims and almost all the services are exclusively for women. Male victims are invisible, marginalised and simply not taken seriously.

If you don't speak to them they cannot answer.

Imagine how they feel in a world that laughs at them for being abused and also refuses to help them.

For heaven's sake rape is rape.
Posted by pelican, Monday, 3 March 2008 2:06:08 PM

Is IT?

The definition of rape has been expanded in recent times, so that what once was regarded as bad behaviour could now possibly be regarded as rape.

The latest effort is to make sex a crime if the woman is intoxicated and 'active' consent was not given.

People,
males and females are both charged with drink driving, or for drunken behaviour, so maybe in the name of equality both genders should be charged with having sex whilst under the influence?

An attempt at seduction could very possibly wind up as a sexual assault charge.

Articdog wrote about men, I however have a number of gay female friends and their stories, well if a bloke behaved the way they did, it would be classified as sexual assault. But for some reason because they are women they can get away with it. And there is a research paper which does in fact discuss sexual assault of females by females. However access is restricted to the paper.

This continual claim that men are such violent beings compared to women is a joke. Sorry ladies but if you want to be treated as equals then don't complain when you are treated that way in a fight too. Yes women tend to be hurt more often but do you feel sorry for a small bloke who picks a fight with a bug one and gets his rear beat? Then why is that a problem when a woman picks the fight? Women in shelters admitted they threw the first punch in 52% of the cases during early research and we are finding now it is even more often they are throwing that first shot.

If a slap is domestic violence by a man deserving of helping her and punishing him, then it should be treated the same if a woman slaps. The same with sex and someone being drunk, when they molest a minor and etc. As it stands, they are not treated equally by any long shot and I see the feminists here don't REALLY want equality in treatment but instead laws that will just punish men. Now why they have that hatred of men is their issue but instead of hiding behind claims of inequality that are bogus, just admit you have a serious problem and get help.

How about this, try to actually address the numerous studies and statistics as well as issues mentioned to you instead of dodging and hiding behind propaganda.

http://www.divorcenet.com/states/new_york/politics_of_domestic_violence
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/1999/10/25/restraining_orders/index.html
http://www.supportguidelines.com/articles/art199903.html
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2e012098-a2f8-44a6-ad48-90756f74f64a&p=1
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/520686/

There are plenty of links for you now. Final challenge though, show me a single case in the USA, Canada, UK or Australia where a MAN has successfully used being the victim of spousal abuse to beat murder charges after killing his spouse. We have plenty of cases like that where women have managed to use that defense but why not any men?

@pelican

That "man" I spoke of is my brother in law. I will not drive that sort of wedge into my own family.

If male consent is taken seriously why do we never hear about it? As I’ve already stated the existing advocacy and outreach never references it. Take the article this thread relates to as an example. Regardless of framing it as being about footballers it still devolves to the "horrible things men do to drunken women". Meanwhile it is just as possible, and probably just as likely, that men fall victim to women in the same way and with potentially far greater consequences.

I've got into the habit of encouraging men to say "no" and do it regularly. It serves the dual purpose of giving them a modicum of self determination in sexual transactions and of educating them about how women can respond when THEIR advances are rejected. Notably, under domestic violence laws influenced by US feminists, Mexican men have lost their right to consent. If men aren't made aware of this right they may well lose it in other places as well.

As you say there are "services" which are available to men and boys. However they tend to only pay lip service to male victims and almost never openly reference them in their outreach or promotion unless they are same sex victims. The only way of finding any information is to go seeking it. By then, for the victim, it's far too late.

The typical male victim doesn't come out of the woodwork until their forties and then generally only because their health has been seriously compromised. Our culture doesn't allow males to be victims of abuse particularly of the sexual variety.

No matter how you look at it all the information dispensed in our culture is predicated on the female victim of the male abuser. Nobody speaks to the male victim.

As I said previously if you don't speak to them they can't answer.

>Articdog wrote about men, I however have a number of gay female friends and their stories, well if a bloke behaved the way they did, it would be classified as sexual assault.<

Yes, I did write about men. I worked in support groups for both men and women who had been abused, both as adults and as children. Many of the gay people had been violently, and frequently, abused by men as children - a smaller number by women. Many (not all) people who have been thus abused do tend to use violence as adults. Once again, though, the majority of violence is perpetrated by men. The male support groups offered support and help for men who were victims of domestic violence and there were added problems to do with pride and masculinity that were not present in women. Still, compared to the women and children, few of the men ended up in hospital with # jaws, # eye-sockets, # limbs, gunshot wounds, knife wounds etc. So I stand by what I said - it is men that are perpetrating the majority of violence. The point that the author, Melinda Tankard Reist, was trying to make is that violence by men is so common that women have become so desensitised to it that they accept it as part of their world. It is this culture that is wrong. If we have to teach young men that it is not acceptable the culture is so skewed that something is desperately wrong with the way we are living. Why aren't we in fact addressing the problem she poses instead of resorting to the ho-hum, "I know somebody who did....." ad nauseum ad infinitum. WE SHOULD BE DOING MORE TO STOP ALL VIOLENCE TO ALL PEOPLE.

gwallan

The law does not distinguish between the genders when it comes to rape but I do agree with you that men are often too afraid to speak out about rape and other issues to do with DV for the reasons that arcticdog outlines. And there is certainly not enough attention in the media and by governments to address issues that affect men in this area.

For men and women who have been raped there is always a conflict whether to report, sometimes it is easier to just get on with your life and not go through the whole court case scenario where as a victim you may be treated as though you somehow asked for it. Difficult and a no-win situation really, as a civilised society we are obliged and expected to provide a defence to the accused who is presumed innocent. It is a real balancing act and I am not sure how we as a society could do it better.

Can I add that any woman who might allege a rape that has not actually occurred is equally repugnant as any rapist. This is a serious allegation and can impact greatly on a man's life.

BOTTOM LINE is:

If we all treated each other with respect and compassion then these situations are not likely to occur. We are all adults, we know what rape is and what constitutes rape and what doesn't, we don't have to define the grey areas and skirt the issues - what if this, what if that.

If I was a man and the woman I was with was drunk, even if she 'appeared' willing to have sex I would choose not to partake no matter how strong the urge in respect of her condition. As a woman I would do the same if the man was drunk. This is not rocket science just plain decency and common sense.

Posted by csteele, Friday, 29 February 2008 1:05:59 AM

That's a really good analogy, but doesn't take into account the guys sexuality. If both were gay, I'm sure your argument is severely weakened.

Posted by arcticdog, Monday, 3 March 2008 12:42:42 PM

'Until you take the situation in hand yourselves, and start behaving the way decent folk do, stop the whingeing.'

Notice how you have villified all the men of the forum and virtually called them rapists and abusers. Why should they 'listen up' and start behaving like a 'real man'. I have never taken advantage of a women, and you have no evidence any of the other posters have. But since other men have, we are constantly having to deal with this kind of attitude. It's extremely offensive.

Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 3 March 2008 2:38:35 PM

I'd imagine that is exactly the case. But notice only the men need be 'educated'. To violence against women, Australia says no. To violence against men by women (which is 50% of it, and likely to lead to further violence against women) Australia doesn't believe it ever happens, or totally condones it.

Men have sole responsibility for a woman's ability to consent to sex, regardless of how drunk they both were, and sole responsibility for any violence in a relationship regardless of whether the woman threw the first punch.

Propper dealing with the issues are really hampered by this attitude. Only the other day a report came out showing a 25% increase in statistics of women being charged in domestic violence. IMMEDIATELY the women's rights organisations threw out their propaganda to silence this, offerring every excuse under the sun, and virtually saying it should be ignored to protect women who may be mistakenly seen as the aggessors. The police should be 're-trained' to see men as the aggressors and women as the victims. It's better to protect these few women, and let the rest get off scott free, and maintain women's exclusive victim status.

arcticdog,

You may stand by what you said based on personal experience but as someone that has tried to enforce the laws, even when men report it you are pressured to arrest him and not her. He can then plan on being shamed and laughed at by all kinds of groups and people to keep him quiet. When they have found that 38% of ER visits due to DV are by men, then don't you think it is a lot more serious than it is being taken?

I suggest you read the links I provided in my post and also try taking up my challenge. For some reason it is acceptable for a woman to beat a man and claim self-defense but if a woman has a mark on her and he was the one doing the defending, he can plan on going to jail. Same goes with sex offenders in double standards. When males report being raped or molested they are not believed and mocked for it. Even when they are believed they are mocked for it and their perpetrator is likely to get parole at best but when you reverse the gender it is suddenly an outrage.

http://www.canadiancrc.com/female_sexual_predators_awareness.aspx
75% of sexual predators are male and 25% are female.
86% of the victims of female sexual predators aren't believed, so the crimes go unreported and don't get prosecuted.

However, in six studies reviewed by Russell and Finkelhor, female perpetrators accounted for 25% or more of abusers. Ramsay-Klawsnik (1990) found that adult females were abusers of males 37% of the time and female adolescents 19% of the time. Both of these rates are higher than the same study reported for adult and teen male abusers.

http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/520686/

A 32-nation study of violence against dating partners by university partners found that about a third had been violent, and most incidents of partner violence involve violence by both the man and woman. The second largest category was couples where the female partner was the only one to carry about physical attacks, not the male partner.

Quentin0352 and gwallan I don't know where you guys come from, but thank god you are here and thank you for your contribution.

Eeva Sodhi (please note she is a woman) in Manufacturing Research wrote "begin their research "with women's experience as they (the women themselves) see it". They then turn around and say that, after all, that is not what they meant. What they really meant is that women research subjects need to be educated to realize that feminist researchers, with their superior intellect and training, are in the best position to interpret what women's experiences are.

This is best described by D. Millen (1997) in her 'Some Methodological and Epistemological Issues Raised by Doing Feminist Research on Non-Feminist Women' [in: Sociological Research Online, vol. 2, no. 3]. She quotes Maynard and Purvis:

[I]ndividuals do not necessarily possess sufficient knowledge to explain everything about their lives (Maynard and Purvis, 1994: p. 6).

The above, if nothing else, infantilizes women and makes any gender based research meaningless as all that is given at the end is the researcher's personal bias.

Contractors are further instructed to "make a careful choice about which indicators are going to be applied" because the indicators have to reflect the gendered approach they are developing. Under no circumstance is it permissible to conclude that Canadian women are not subjected to a systemic bias. Every undertaking must be premised on an understanding of the "historical and continuing reality of women's inequality" in Canadian society."
http://web.archive.org/web/20050308115735/www.nojustice.info/Research/ManufacturingResearch.htm

Artic dog
In a previous post you said that “women are still largely being victimised by men” without any evidence.

Then go on to say “'poor little bloke me, me missus did me wrong' nonsense”.

Then you describe VFL players as “over-testosteroned blokes” that are “underendowed with brain-power”

Then you go on to say “stop the whingeing”, and then describe men as living in an “knock-down, drag-em-by-the hair-to-the caves” era, when no such era ever existed.

Now you have let it slip that you are involved in support groups.

I would think you would be the least likely person that should be involved in any type of support group.

You are biased to the core, have no regard for men, and use emotion and propaganda rather than scientific fact.

I believe you should be resigning from any support group you belong to.

R0bert, TRTL (and others on the DV thread)

I have only just come to this discussion, so apologies if I repeat what others have already said. Claims of equal gender battering are based on CTS (Conflict Tactics Scale) methodology, which has been pretty much discredited, even by the original researchers. Both Richard J. Gelles and Murray Straus, two of the original CTS authors, have categorically rejected such interpretations of their work.

Among the main faults of CTS are:

• The surveys are voluntary, which excludes those too terrorised by DV to participate, and the most abusive individuals are unlikely to agree to participate for fear of exposure.
• Only ongoing relationships are included – a significant omission when approximately three-quarters of male-initiated DV assaults occur after the end of a relationship.
• Privacy was not always assured. Often significant others were present when the surveys were conducted.
• No questions were asked about rape or sexual assault, where male abusers predominate.
• Interpretations of DV are woefully limited and context is ignored. For example, a push in self-defense is weighted on an equal level to pushing someone down the stairs; a kick is weighted higher than a shove, so a playful kick while kidding around is rated higher than shoving someone up against a wall.
• Mental impact is ignored. Due to the disparity in physical strength, women are likely to be much more frightened and disempowered by violence from a man, compared to vice versa.
• Differences in reasons for gender violence are ignored. For example, men are often violent as a method of control or response to rejection, whereas women are often violent when their lives or their children’s lives are threatened.

My question would be: Why is such a discredited research method still being used as the basis for so many studies and articles designed to ‘prove’ equal battering rates between men and women? Certainly men are being battered and should be listened to and supported, but making false claims and misinterpretations about the extent to which they are being battered does not help their case.

Excellent post SJF. I agree particularly with your final paragraph.

Now I hope you're wearing a digital raincoat...

SJF,

That's a really interesting post, and I'm sure you and the others will argue till the cows come home who's references are more valid.

But Some of it sounds like pure propaganda to me. i.e. 'men are often violent as a method of control or response to rejection, whereas women are often violent when their lives or their children’s lives are threatened.'

I think this illustrates huge bias on how men and woman are treated. Women are just so wholesome, even when they do bad, it's only because they are protecting their children or themselves, and it's really a mans fault somewhere. Men should be punished when they do wrong, women should be helped. If you really want equality, you have to take away all this rubbish about women being so virtuous by nature, and men being violent by nature.

'Mental impact is ignored. Due to the disparity in physical strength, women are likely to be much more frightened and disempowered by violence from a man, compared to vice versa.
'
This I can understand. But is it really relevant? Violence is violence, and leads to more violence. It never occurs to you that a man who has been brought up not to hit women and finds himself under attack is disempowered? A man who knows full well if he does hit back he will lose custody of his children and be foced to leave the family home? Is he not disempowered?

Women are so keen to ensure the men remain the villian. In those DV adverts, in an attempt to not give any excuse for male violence against women, they end up giving the message that female violence against men DOESN'T HAPPEN, or is CONDONED. It also absolves TOTALLY a womans responsibility in the following case...

Couple argues. Woman gets hysterical. Woman slaps man in face, woman pushes man against wall. Woman throws dangerous objects at man, woman kicks man. Man finally punches woman in face and breaks nose. Why is it not possible to give the woman some responsibility for this without excusing the mans behaviour?

@SJF...

You suggest Murray Strauss now rejects CTS? He has done no such thing and is still using it. The only "rejection" comes from those within the DV establishment whose incomes and influence depend on maintaining the status quo.

The CTS was denounced only AFTER men were included in the research. Prior to that there was no objection to it's use. Statistics gathered using the CTS methodology were widely referenced in DV advocacy and still are.

It's an example of shifting the goalposts. A similar thing occurred with the shift to referencing "intimate partner violence" after attention was drawn to the fact that "domestic violence" should include the abuse of children and elders in which women lead men significantly. Notably the highest rates of intimate partner violence occur among lesbians.

All of the "faults" you list can be easily countered or equivalent limiting factors for male victims can be shown.

You ask...
"Why is such a discredited research method still being used as the basis for so many studies and articles designed to ‘prove’ equal battering rates between men and women? Certainly men are being battered and should be listened to and supported, but making false claims and misinterpretations about the extent to which they are being battered does not help their case."

Hyperbolic claims seem to have worked quite well for women’s advocates.

Why does the majority of advocacy research not include men at all? Why are there no services or support for men apart from those that assume a default position that they are abusers? While you admit that there are men being abused I can guarantee that virtually every one of them thinks he's the only one.

Frankly I'm surprised that ANY research picks up male victims at all. Men have a much higher threshold for what they would consider abusive to them. They’re constantly told that only women are victims. In the US over a quarter of abused men who call police are themselves arrested. They are also well aware that any admission that they were abused by a woman will result in their being ridiculed

SJF,
Personally I don’t pay that much attention to DV surveys because so many have been so heavily corrupted by feminism that the results are normally corrupted also.

For example: - There have been a very large number of surveys into domestic violence that have excluded all men, and completely gender biased and feminist organizations such as the Office of Women continue to exclude all men from any survey they undertake (whether it is a survey into DV or something else).

If the people running the surveys have an attitude that “men are often violent as a method of control or response to rejection” or that men are “cavemen”, or men are “underendowed with brain-power”, then they will organize the DV survey to achieve the results they desire.

Instead, I look around, and I have never seen a woman with a black eye out of the many 1,000’s of women I have seen. These women have been walking down the street, at schools, at workplaces, at shops and supermarkets, at festivals and also at sporting events.

SJF,

Melanie Phillips (a woman) wrote "their main arguement that the studies showing equal violence between the sexes used flawed methodology. Yet the same methodology has been used in studies which show women alone to victims of DV."

So basically feminist researchers are highly selective in the use of their criticisms.

Interestingly the WSS used a conflict scale and the figure of 1 in 4 was and still is often quoted.

Please note in my previous post how feminist researchers feel that individual women "do not necessarily possess sufficient knowledge to explain everything about their lives."

SJF, firstly feminist researchers expand the definition of DV to include things like "giving the silent treatment" which by the way almost 100% of the male population would have been on the recieving end at some point in their lives.

Many earlier feminist researchers dismissed alcohol and drug use as contribuiting factors in DV.

So now you complain that using such definitions as the silent treatment in DV research is unfair too women and doesn't show the true extent of violence.

"Would you say that the idea that both females and males can be both aggressors and victims is becoming more accepted among those in the field? Why or why not?

These notions are not new; they had found support as far back as the 1970’s, in the work of Murray Straus, Peter Neidig and other researchers. For years, studies conducted by these mavericks were dismissed, and in some cases suppressed,"
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1843#more-1843

About 70 women are murdered per year, yet Ovarian cancer killed 851 women in 2004.

Warren Farrell made a poignant point "as soon as research stops showing women as victims, the research stops."

Eeva Sodhi (a woman) wrote an interesting paper on How perceptions are not facts" and in the paper she exposes how feminist researchers use statistical slight of hand and blend methodologies to support their arguement.

So SJF, I think this is a case of the "kettle calling the pot black"(sic)

Whitty

‘If you really want equality, you have to take away all this rubbish about women being so virtuous by nature, and men being violent by nature.’

I would think that if you really want equality, you have to ‘take away’ the fact that men batter women at least seven times more than women batter men. Besides, victimhood does not equate with virtue, nor does violent male behaviour indicate that men are violent by nature.

Gwallan

‘You suggest Murray Strauss now rejects CTS? He has done no such thing and is still using it.’

I did not say that Straus rejects CTS. I said that he rejects INTERPRETATIONS of CTS that claim equal levels of gender battering. I think this quote from Straus is a fair enough representation of his views:

‘... although women may assault their partners at approximately the same rate as men, because of the greater physical, financial, and emotional injury suffered by women, they are the predominant victims … Consequently, first priority in services for victims and in prevention and control must continue to be directed toward assaults by husbands.’

Source: ‘The Controversy over domestic violence by women: a methodological, theoretical and sociology of science analysis’, Murray A. Straus, 1997.

HRS

‘Instead, I look around, and I have never seen a woman with a black eye out of the many 1,000’s of women I have seen.’

This comment reminds me of a time I was dining with my husband at a bistro. Suddenly, a woman literally came flying through the air and landed on the table right next to ours, smashing it in two. The man who had thrown her there came running over, pulled her up by the hair and started pummeling her with his fists - all amidst the screams of the children she had just landed on. As he was being subdued by two security guards, the woman shot off into the night without a single word.

SJF,

I never said victimhood equates with virtue, I suggest false assumptions of female virtue, and false assumptions of mens propensity for violence hides the truth of the situation.

You can only find what you are looking for in statistics, as you and the other posters have shown. There are simply more feminists than any other group looking for a situation where women are the victims of domestic violence.

'This comment reminds me of a time...'

Yes and that comment reminds me of my former partner constantly comming home drunk and abusive, who would punch and kick and throw anything she could find at me. If I grabbed her arms to defend myself she would accuse me of abuse and threaten to call the cops, and would get a knife out and swing it at me. If I attempted to leave the situation she would put the knife to her wrist and threaten suicide.

I also had a work collegue who had 12 stiches in his head from his partner bashing him with the broken leg of a table. I'm sure you would assume he was somehow at fault (as did the police), but other housemates confirmed she was regularly abusive.

Just because you have one story doesn't strengthen your case at all.

I believe you are like so many feminists who believe that these things just don't happen, and that somehow it is really the guys fault, and that the guy is always in the position of power. Life's not that simple dear.

While ever people like you attempt to play down the amount and severity of instances of females assulting males, and try to absolve women from any responsibility in domestic violence just because a women has ended up been injured more, we will be a long way from a solution to the problem.

While ever researchers interview only women victims, and carry with them preconceived bias', and government campaigns portray men as being the sole villians in domestic disputes, and there are only 'Violence against women' hotlines to ring, the issue is not being dealt with effectively.

SJF,
Judging by the amount of abuse of myself and other men on this forum and a number of other forums by those who say that men are abusive, then it is very difficult to believe anything from a feminist.

Finding some truth in what a feminist says is about as easy as walking down a street and trying to find a woman with a black eye.

Or trying to find a woman with a black eye in a shopping center, supermarket, workplace, sports grounds, school, university, church, beach, park, cinema, café or restaurant

The Conflict Tactics Scales and Its Critics:
and New Data on Evaluation Validity and Reliability

Murray a Straus

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CTS4.pdf

Summary - "Although far from a perfect instrument, the comparison presented in this chapter of the CTS with the available alternatives, together with the evidence on stable factor structure, inoderate reliability and concurrent validity, and the strong evidence of construct validity, suggests that the CTS is the best available instrument to measure intrafamily violence."

Making something a first priority should not make it the only priority.

R0bert

I should point out that I the excert I referenced in the previous post appears to have been first published in 1990 so Murray Straus may have changed his views since this was written but I've not seen anything by him which indicates that he has. The points made in the document are still valid.

R0ber

The claim that women only hit to fight back against an abuser is an old excuse that is bunk. We keep hearing there is NO excuse for abuse but suddenly a man fighting back is still abuse but a woman doing so is and excuse. Research shows it is wrong as many of the links I posted demonstrate. One link even has a study of 32 nations and the results were consistent in that women were much more likely to stalk, threaten, harass and hit than men in a relationship.

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1828

Dr. Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling of the University of South Alabama specializes in Juvenile, Family, and Intimate Partner Violence.

At the conference, she co-presented the Plenary "Family Roots of Adolescent Violence in Relationships and Effective Interventions: A Developmental and Relational Perspective"

1) When grappling with the emerging reality that women commit Intimate Partner Violence as often as men, she said, "Every time we tried to say that women's intimate partner abuse is different than men's, the evidence did not support it."

I also suggest before claiming Strauss has any problems with his methods and how they are used that you read up. He states he disagrees with how his critics have misused the scale and data more than anything else. The reason is many modified it heavily to create surveys intentionally weighted against male victims.

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CTS4.pdf

Here is his home page for his various publications.

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ctsb.htm

Now, even if we use the claim of only one in seven victims are male, then it still doesn't work that 100% of campaigns, help and other resources are aimed strictly at helping women. Would one in seven women being violently raped be acceptable and ignored? If not then why is it acceptable to ignore one in seven victims of domestic violence or that one in 4 victims of molesting as a child be ignored because their attacker is a female?

If any are interested in a more engaged and fuller debate on the issues with me, try me here. Moderated with strictly the two of us debating. http://www.standyourground.com/forums/

@SJF...

Maybe looking at Strauss' work in the decade since would be of benefit. Remember also that he's in a position where if he doesn't play ball to some extent with feminist dictates he gets no funding or coverage. RObert's cite is older again but that piece is worth the read anyway.

@pelican...
Rape laws in Australia have been gender neutral for only ten years. We have yet to actually punish a woman for heterosexual abuse even though many counsellors and psychologists believe male victims have greater problems. The application of the laws is not gender neutral.

Up to twenty percent of male victims will become offenders. Between two thirds and three quarters of the men who go to prison for violent rape have a history of sexual abuse by a woman. By not taking the sexual abuse committed by women seriously we create rapists of women and girls. And so it goes.

The training of police and judiciary has been provided by advocacy groups which grew out of the feminist rape activism of the early eighties. It will not allow the implication of women in any way. That's reflected in the treatment of male heterosexual victims by police, courts, media and public.

What we get by way of advocacy research in Aus comes from the like of Freda Briggs who claims that male same sex victims will commit heterosexual abuse(rubbish!) and also asserts that all teenage boys should be assumed to be paedophiles.

"...men are often too afraid to speak out about rape and other issues to do with DV for the reasons that arcticdog outlines"

arcticdog "outlines" no reasons at all and alleges that the vast majority of child abuse is committed by men. That is patently false. arcticdog is engaging in the same sort of stuff as Freda Briggs and even resorts to a form of "blaming the victim" where male victims are concerned. It’s precisely the thing I’m talking about. arctigdog sheets responsibility home to HIM no matter what. This is what stands for help for male victims in much of the existing structures.

The title of Melinda Tankard Reist article is Not Rape just boys acting up, and then the byline is "Many young women don’t even seem to understand the meaning of sexual harassment: it’s become so normalised they just expect it."

Daphne Patai in Heterophobia made an interesting point in that Rape and sexual harassment are used in the same sentence as an inflammatory analogy in order to get our brains to see rape and sexual harassement as the same thing.

Even though behaviour which is classified as sexual harassement is miles away from committing rape. However according the Human rights website, for behaviour to classified as sexual harassment the behaviour must happen in a work place and public places on crown land.

Also the behaviour must be unwelcomed. So if bloke says to a girl "show us your tits" and she does or appreciates the attention, it is not sexual harassment, it is crude behaviour Yes.

Patai also raise the issue of the ambiguity of human sexual relationships and sadly this is one really really hot potatoe.

James,

Since the author states 'Many young women don’t even seem to understand the meaning of sexual harassment...', you could also infer she is deciding what other women should feel is harassment. Obviously individuals vary greatly in this regard, and one woman's harmless flirting can be another woman's harassment. I've always failed to see how you can define standard universal rules to what is a very personal and individual way that people interact.

Anyone who saw the SBS documentary on Footy Girls, showing the Rugby League groupies would have a far more balanced opinion of the sub-culture. But of course as always we only see articles here attempting to perpetuate women as the victims.

There are many other ridiculous double standards too. If women athletes were persued by men in the same way male athletes are persued by women as illustrated in the Footy Girls documentary, I'm sure there would be articles like this one berating the behaviour of the groupies instead. But since they're women, it's not harassment, and their behaviour is excluded as a contributer to the attitudes to women the men are seen to posses.

I also wonder whether male sports journalists are allowed into the woman's netball change rooms the same way women journalists are allowed into the men's League change rooms;-)

Whitty, yes it is interesting in that Melinda an expert in sexual harassment is telling other women how they should feel.

A typical senario would possibly go something like, "why don't you find that behaviour offensive?"

"That sort of behaviour oppresses all women and he doesn't respect you."

"but i think its fun, cute etc"

"You are letting other women down and contributing to your own oppression by not objecting to that sort of behaviour"

"He only sees you as a sex object. he isnt concerned about your feelings."

Bingo! after being re-educated the woman will then find offense in behaviour that she once found to be fun, cute, attractive, a turn on etc.

I found an interesting article on women and lying, it appears that women are better liars than men.

"Many women use the "betterment lie," as Barash calls it, as a means to an end. "
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03022008/news/regionalnews/miss_leading_100063.htm

R0bert -
I see why you're making a case for supporting male victims of DV. I've no doubt it happens, though I'd argue the severity of attacks is probably an even more important consideration than frequency, though both do count.
I've not seen any statistics counteracting that more fatalities and severe bashings are of women, at the hands of men.

Frankly, I wouldn't believe them.
I can believe women would beat men that badly in rare instances, but never anywhere near anything approaching a majority. Aside from the issues of physicality, it just doesn't stack up.

Though I can believe there are a fair proportion of incidents of female to male DV when it comes to issues like slapping, but again, I doubt even then the frequency's equal.

In any case, it's still an issue worth pursuing and I hope you do have success. I'm aware there's inequality in the legislation when it comes to issues and perceptions of parenting, one area where I do have sympathy for men in the system.

Ideologues like HRS however, I've no sympathy for. He's obviously been chewed up, but turned his experiences to hate.

HRS, my criticisms of you aren't a 'feminist' criticism. It's just one person criticising another.

Your cries of 'abuse' is just whinging. It's exceptionally offputting, because you're crying wolf. When people like R0bert raise legitimate concerns, the slighted bitter misogynists like you screw things up for them and ensure nobody's listening.

Plus, in order to justify yourself you resort to childish games and a wide array of blatant fallacies.

Your VFL comment is irrelevant. Of course people don't have statistics on hand. Because they don't, that doesn't mean you're right. You know damn well this approach is childish. It doesn't give you carte-blanche to ignore the things which prove you wrong.

HRS you are a misogynist. When you can accept that not 'all' the views of feminists are wrong, then maybe I'll reconsider. I'm not saying there aren't rabid man-hating feminists out there, of course there are.

It's just that you're exactly the same as them, but in reverse.

Excellent summary, TRTL - except that I think it's a gross overestimation of Timkins' intellectual prowess to refer to him as an "ideologue" :)

Whitty and JamesH

If the woman who was happy to show her “tits” was then raped as a consequence of this “bit of cute fun” would it be her fault or would the rapist have to take some responsibility as well? Whereas the woman who believes “show us your tits” is sexual harassment (SH) is relegated by some to the man-hating brigade . Not much room is there for women between the proverbial rock and hard place.

Sexual harassment is generally agreed to be unwanted attention and yes one person’s flirt may be another’s SH, although we might agree that there are some obvious examples in the workplace such as a request from a boss (male or female) like “if you sleep with me I will give you a promotion”. Most would agree this inappropriate not only in terms of SH.

"if you sleep with me I will give you a promotion”
Pelican,
The woman (or man these days) can either accept or reject this proposal. No SH there. If it were a case of " I'll sack you if don't want to sleep with" then that's a threat & therefore an offence. No SH.
SH is ignoring a clear statement of saying "I do not wish to have any romantic or sexual liason with you" from the person who feels harrassed. It must be made clear that the attention is not wanted.
No-one can claim SH if they haven't made an attempt to clarify the situation. It is vital that a person is aware of the opposite sex"s natural instincts & must keep in mind that attraction is governed by a natural phenomenon. Like it or not, there is a point of no return in that field. People should refrain from provocation if they're unsure that they're reading the right signal. If you don't want that kind of attention then simply say so clearly. Don't wait until the other is in deep water because you failed to understand the opposite sex.

TurnRightThenLeft, thanks for the response.

I'm not aware of any serious attempts to claim that more men than women are sexually assaulted or suffer serious injury at the hands of the other gender.

The evidence is fairly clear that women initiate violence at least as often as men. I and others have posted enough material about this for the issue to be more about what you are willing to believe than an issue of evidence.

Claims about DV rates and what constitutes DV are very clearly aimed at a much wider range of behaviours than sexual assault or serious physical injury. Those types of abuse are well towards the extreme end of the scale.

I've made references to the Queensland Health website coverage of DV quite regularly http://www.health.qld.gov.au/violence/domestic/default.asp

They are not just talking about sexual assault or serious injury, it's the whole gamaut of abusive behaviours within a spousal relationship.

The federal government campaign "Violence Against Women - Australia Says No" also portrayed the issue as male violence against women and mentioned non physical and low level behaviours (inappropriate questioning etc). No mention of same sex violence, no mention of violence by women against men. I'm uncertain what budget that campaign had, some info at http://www.ofw.facs.gov.au/womens_safety_agenda/index.htm which lists a number of 2005 initiatives with a combined budget of $75.7 million

The portrayal of DV by government and others makes our anti-muslim brigade look almost fastidious in their care to represent muslims fairly.

Some clearly think that it's very important to portray the issue on gender lines and have no qualms about extremely dishonest representation of the issue. The fact that they are managing to do so using our tax dollars and via official government channels should be very disturbing to all of us.

Would it seem so harmless if the target group was based on racial or sexual orientation lines rather than gender?

R0bert

Pelican,

'If the woman who was happy to show her “tits” was then raped as a consequence of this “bit of cute fun” would it be her fault or would the rapist have to take some responsibility as well?'

This is ridiculous. Nobody has suggested this but you. Just why would such a situation lead to rape anyway? You have a very poor opinion of men obviously.

This is exactly what I am talking about with domestic violence earlier. Why is it impossible to suggest women take any responsibility for any situation, without supposedly implicitly denying mens responsibilities? This is such a typical feminist tactic.

It's the reason why men are being demonised in the DV ads I believe.
The current thinking seems to be that even to portray one example of DV violence where a woman hits a man, or starts the cycle of violence, it somehow weakens the message or excuses mens behaviour. This is total rubbish, and denys the reality and complexity of the issue. I argue the effect of this tactic demonises men, and alienates men who may have been allies to the cause. It also vanquishes any responsibility women should take for domestic disputes.

In domestic disputes, men are responsible for the WHOLE SITUATION. Women can start the violence, and in an emotion charged conflict a woman can attack with impunity, using any means, knowing it's the mans responsibility that things don't get out of hand. Men have the responsibility to control their behaviour women don't. Same in the bedroom with regards to consent. Men are responsible for consent of the woman nomatter how drunk both people are. Believe it or not the rape fantasy is a big one with women, as they can partake in that nasty male persuit of sex, and stay 'pure'.

BTW: You would be surprised how much sexual harassment I copped as a shy kid in school work experience by a bunch of middle aged female accounts clerks.

Whitty mentioned this...
"BTW: You would be surprised how much sexual harassment I copped as a shy kid in school work experience by a bunch of middle aged female accounts clerks."

As an exercise keep your eyes open in situations where there are kids or young men in the vicinity of groups of women.

For example a family Christmas turn a few years back. I had to rescue a young nephew from a group of his aunts who were mauling him and teasing him about "girlfriends". Poor kid was utterly traumatised by it.

It's a behaviour many women engage in. Not only that but they do it publicly, shamelessly and even make a team sport of it.

Imagine what some of the posters here would think of a group of men treating a young girl like that.

Oh, wait, that's what this is all about isn't it.

Now pay attention students...
Did you know feminism was created by women and from a womens' "perspective" only?

Now, class, can you say "transference"? Can you spell "projection"

Now, class, can you say "transference"? Can you spell "projection"
Posted by gwallan,

A post on Glenn Sacks

'Most marital problems revolve around why the wife is unhappy with her husband'

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1874

Melinda

"Many young women don’t even seem to understand the meaning of sexual harassment" or is it that they don't interpret it the way you do?

As for whether or not 'the lad' watches a couple having sex, why do I get the presumption in your article that it is the woman who is violated, not respected and so on, if he does. The men and women who get themselves in these situations should bear more even handed criticism, if any criticism of the obvious is necessary.

My question is why should my tax dollars be pissed away with police and other resources wasted on these people when they get into easily preventable circumstances?

The whole male bashing tone of your article is quite sexist.

@MoreSanity...

There's a consistant distortion in public knowledge about sexual abuse because of the intrusion of feminist thinking and hyperbole into the field. There were already many misconceptions among the population many of which the advocacy has, to it's credit, tried to dispel. Unfortunately it has also acted to shore up other myths due to it's frequent gender bias.

Much of it can be demonstrated to harm victims and even create more. Unfortunately most of the current advocacy comes from the line of thinking adopted by the feminist groups which created the rape activism of the early eighties. They were extremists in both their beliefs and their actions.

The title should read -"just aroused animals acting up".
I think it comes from the type of sport being taught,if you can call it sport.It is an instinctual defense and attack being aroused and it does not belong in the sport arena as such.Bring a boy from a war zone and see the similarity of that behavior.It means nothing to them to break a person's neck, all in the name of the game, why do some girls put up with that? At least a warrior can expect (maybe) some debriefing, this should therefore apply after each game too, before they are send out into the crowd.

eftfnc said...
"The title should read -"just aroused animals acting up"."

I agree. And that's just the women we're talking about.

You ask...
"why do some girls put up with that?" Why? Because they love it. They love having the opportunity to brag to their girlfriends about the footballer or the band member they shagged. They queue up for hours for the opportunity and make no bones about their availability for anything that's going.

Take it from somebody who's had the experience that the behaviour some of the women concerned is disgusting.

Your war analogy is laughable, as well as incoherent, and demonstrates that you have no knowledge of sport OR war. You also have no knowledge of the frequent harassment and stalking that celebrities, including athletes, endure from the predominantly female groupies.

Why, oh why, would anybody in their right minds listen to feminist claims about footballers? They are the last people who would have any concept of the world high level athletes live in.

Turnrightthenleft,
I can understand why you like feminism so much. It gives you ample oppurtunity to carry out abuse.

For example: - Calling someone a "bitter misogynists" who plays "childish games", and who has "blatant fallacies" and is "childish" is ALL ABUSE, because you haven't proven any of it, and you would have to be one of the most abusive feminists on OLO.

I have never heard of a VFL player being charged with rape. So how many VFL players rape women?