One aspect that the writer failed to mention is the use by women of false accusations of violence against men, which is promoted and encouraged within the Family Law industry by the assumption that violence is exclusively perpetrated by men. I've been the victim of such false allegations and there is literally no path open for redress unless one wishes to go through a long and expensive civil litigation process. The effect of such allegations is devastating for the one accused, as the legal process is specifically designed on the assumption that such allegations will be found to be true or will not be contested. There is great pressure on the one accused to "consent without admission" to a DVO/AVO (thus neatly avoiding any onus of proof), while the accuser is given special consideration, including police escorts to a "sanctuary" within the Courthouse so she won't have to face the person she is lying about. That process, along with the corruption of the CSA is what alerted me to the toxic nature of modern "feminism" as it is practised within our bureaucracies.

I do, however agree with all the writer has said - a very good analysis.

A well-written article.

I'm not so sure about the "mostly fair-minded older sisters" part though. The article detailed how men were getting a poor deal because of the efforts of these 'sisters'. If that is true, how could they be fair minded?

I think you make the mistake that these people are somehow professionals who want to make a better society for all. That is not true. Feminists are advocates, they are not interesed in brokering a fair deal, they are not an impartial arbitar af social policy: they are totally and soley interested in getting the best possible deal for women.

This sort of activism has done us all a great deal of harm. When the family court sees itself not as a professional arbitar but as an agent of social change championing the rights of 'oppressed' groups, we have a problem. Suddenly, all men are wife beaters, child molesters (some just haven't offended yet)and generally a threat to women and children. Women can't lie and men need to prove their innocence.

When school retention rates were 60:40 in favour of boys it was discrimination, yet when the numbers were reversed it was called equality. How is this fair-minded?

My fear is that things will only get worse. With large budget surpluses, we will soon see a clamouring for publicly funded organisations championing 'social justice'. I am bracing myself for a return to the 'all men are rapists' political correctness of the 90s.

As quite a few posters have already said: why use this subject to perpetuate gender wars? Its so pointless.

The men who do so on this forum at least, are all self-confessed "victims". While anecdotal evidence or personal experience can be and often is, a useful tool to highlight or validate a point it is a two-edged sword. There is a danger that one can use one's own experiences as the definitive experience and apply them as a blanket explanation or definition for all the thousands of other cases. There is also the danger that one hasn't as yet come to terms with one's own experiences and so runs the risk of not thinking or reasoning objectively.

It is only natural that anyone who has been on the receiving end of domestic violence - male or female - has shared experiences, or pays great attention to the reports and experiences of others of their sex who have been through the same thing. This is also a natural part of the healing process but again one runs the danger of generalising. If a member of one gender concentrates or shares only with the members of that gender it can lead to the perpetuation of these rigidly gendered viewpoints. In many cases it can lead to extreme bias which is easily bolstered and fed into by the plethora of websites that seem to exist (once again, for either gender)in order to perpetuate a one-sided outlook.

I have yet to see anyone on these threads a) deny that women too are perpetrators, b) belittle anyone's experiences c)ridicule or belittle any man who has experienced domestic violence. Yet each time an article on the subject appears accusations of this kind of behaviour are used to castigate the entire female sex.

And, as a previous poster pointed out yet again, the plight of the children who are the unwitting participants in these dramas is not highlighted enough in these pointless re-hashes of personal hurt and anger.

A problem facing courts, certain governments and feminists in future years will be to define who is male and who is female.

Like feminism itself, the current DV legislation is totally gender biased, and a male is assumed to be automatically guilty. However this is all based on whether a person has an “M” or a “F” beside their name on their birth certificate form, which is somewhat superficial.

Research into genetics has not been able to accurately find the factor that determines who is male and who is female, as there is so much variation in chromosomes, and gender testing has been dropped from most major sporting events, including the Olympics.

So the courts, certain governments and feminists will have to come up with a formula that defines who is male and who is female, before they continue with their bias, prejudice and discrimination.

I am pleased that Romany mentioned children because that was a reminder that domestic violence should not be restricted to physical violence alone with other types being as prevalent and might produce more long-lasting harm to the partner and/or children.

To take an example, the family terrorist as described by Erin Pizzey is not uncommon. See here:

http://www.ejfi.org/DV/dv-10.htm

Further, parental alienation syndrome (PAS) is even more common, to the extent where many grandparents do not see their children even where the couple are still together. This is because one partner objects to the other enough to ensure that not only is s/he sidelined, but his/her relatives are ostracised from having contact with the children.

Where harm is not sustained physically it can be very hard to convince counsellors and Courts that it has occurred, especially where the process is long and drawn out as would occur in many instances of parental alienation and where a clever perpetrator can easily pose as the victim. For example, mothers are aware that if they themselves appear anxious about another person or situation the child will also be frightful, thus learning to avoid the situation. So the quivering lip and assurance 'You don't really have to go to Grandma's birthday party if you don't want to.' can easily set in motion a self-fulling prophesy, confirmed where convenient with 'You don't usually like to go to their birthdays and you because you don't like them and we can do something that is more fun'.

An issue that needs to be addressed. It is just so sad that it turns into gender wars again. And extremely concerning is the notion that a woman could have been 'asking for it' and shouldn't provoke her partner, he was after all just defending himself.

Maybe the imam from Lakemba was right about men after all, they can't really control themselves when provoked/seduced by a woman.

A man can take out a DVO against his partner. So, stop whining, guys. What needs to be addressed is that it is OK for men to seek help when they are faced with emotional, psychological abuse.

Women most certainly can be violent. Fortunately for men it rarely results in broken ribs, pelvises, eye sockets, jaws and death. Hurt feelings do not require the attention of an orthopaedic surgeon or undertaker.

On which note: with a killing in DV you are in luck as a male, it is seen as manslaughter and you're back on the streets after a few years. But as a female perpetrator you get murder and life.

With some posters there seems to be an implication that women need to be responsible for the violence perpetrated on her and take action and not act the victim. That means that men too need to take responsibility for their actions when they are victims of DV.

With the whole DVO issue that I find concerning is that there is little follow-up or consequences with applying for one. I know of one woman who uses this as THE way to solve relationship 'issues'. There doesn't seem to be a limit on how often any one person can call the police.

This means that the seriousness of a DVO must be rather watered down. Every DVO must be accorded with extreme seriousness and follow-up, because unfortunately, it is used as a weapon, by both women AND men to attain leverage for personal gain.