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.