yvonne, Saturday, 3 May 2008 5:40:42 PM referred to DVOs.

It would be unethical and irresponsible to use DVO to threaten the other party or to get the upper hand in negotiation, as is done in divorces. But plainly as you relate there are people who do that with impunity ans some say that lawyers encourage the use of DVO to 'soften up' the other party.

As a person who is involved in international competition shooting, I can tell you that our male members are very hard done by where a DVO is applied for because it is a kangaroo court where they immediately lose their licences and firearms are confiscated, to be trashed without recompense if the case gets up. The immediate loss could involve tens of thousands of dollars. But even where the case is frivolous and is not upheld, their licence is not reinstated and they have to apply for a licence all over again. This is a sad outcome given that in order to get a licence in the first place they have had to be of very good character, free of criminal convictions.

It is easy to see why so many lawyers and women’s' advocates recommend the DVO as the best weapon to knee-cap men to get the best out of their divorce.

I share your concern that the discussion should do the article justice and not split on gender lines. The best way of doing this would be to recognise from the outset the inappropriateness and unfairness of labelling violence as a 'male' problem as has been done in the Australia Says No campaign.

As well, the broader definition of violence must be applied, because physical violence is just a subset of a much larger and more uniformly widespread problem, where women and girls as just a well represented as men and boys.

I agree Cornflower.

DVO's are serious and are misused.

I know for a fact that physical violence against women has dreadful consequences. I work in a small public hospital and the general public would be quite shocked how often women come in with injuries, real and obvious, as the result from DV. When I first started working in public health 30 years ago this was a shocking eye opener to me. I had no idea this happens in our nice suburbs.

Many women will hide physical abuse from friends and family. It is astonishing how few end up pressing charges. The men are invariably so remorseful and profess undying love.

That does not take away the reality or indeed condones the fact that men are also victims of violence of a different kind. Not the threat of death or severe physical injury, but the threat of false accusations, the threat of emotional blackmail. Especially where children are involved. Both parties are equally brutal in using their children as a way of 'getting back'.

The threat of DV is used in divorce. What men do need to acknowledge, instead of immediately getting on to the anti-feminist tirade, is that this tool is happily used by male lawyers.

17 years ago when I was trying to extricate myself from a marriage (no there was no other party involved) a male lawyer suggested I lodge a DVO. I was shocked that a man could use this as a leverage against another man knowing full well the serious consequences of such an action.

Needless to say I changed lawyers.

It is easy for men to blame feminists as a sinister anti-man conspiracy, but they are not the enemy. It is not the feminists lodging frivolous DVO's.

Lodging any DVO should have real consequences for both parties. The alleged victim and the alleged perpetrator. Just lodging one is ridiculous and not enough. It should entail some mandatory steps and safe guards to resolve this. From consistent counselling over a set period of time to reviews and assessment of the well being of any children.

Sorry Steel,I left one letter out"C".Lasciviate from the word lascivious meaning lustful."Leave thou lascivious wassaills."I forget which play.Perhaps Hamlet.

There is a difference when people know they can take advantage of others and using the law against them and knowing that there's a real victim in the home.

Yvonne: "What men do need to acknowledge, instead of immediately getting on to the anti-feminist tirade, is that this tool is happily used by male lawyers."

Of course it is; any lawyer will use whatever weapons are at hand to serve his/her case. I also agree that the DVO is a necessary tool to prevent the worst cases of abuse. What you're not saying, however, is that the DVO is a very gendered tool, designed to allow women to prevent men from having contact with them. When I went through the circus for nearly 8 months (as I refused to "consent without admission") I saw not a single woman in the defendant's chair. Not a single one in the whole time and yet the Court was full of men lining up to say "yes, I consent to the order without admission" on the well-meaning advice of their lawyers who are aware of the cost and likely outcome of fighting false accusations and also that the Court looks unfavourably on those men who "show no remorse".

Tell me, if it is open to both men and women and if lawyers for both parties are free to use the claim, why were there no women in the dock? My suspicion is that it is because it is very much a "woman's law", written by "feminists" as a result of political agitation by other "feminists". The gender of those "feminists" is irrelevant.

Yvonne: "It is not the feminists lodging frivolous DVO's."

The toxic "feminism" of the bureaucrats and pseudo-academics who are riding on the backs of the genuine victims to make a career is entirely responsible.

I agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph and would only add that the process needs to be much more rapidly resolved. At present, making a claim is sufficient for an interim DVO to be made, which can literally take years to be removed by a Court. Justice delayed is justice denied.

Welcome back SJF. I'm happy to continue to refer to research undertaken using CTS because noting I've seen has convinced me that it is discredited. Especially when compared to the methods used to support the widely publicised views of DV whichseem to rely on the assumption of some feminist theories about power which I don't happen to agree with or which make no genuine attempt to determine the rates of female initiated violence. I've read one of Flood's attacks on CTS and some other material and found it to beless than impressive.

If you are so bothered by CTS how do you feel about the Qld Health page I referenced, is that a fair portrayal of the issue? Those saying some acknowledgement of female initiated DV needs to be made seem to attract a lot more ire than others clearly going far beyond the bounds of any credible research such as the claims on the Qld Health site. Why is that.

Even if we don't agree about the genderisation of DV would you agree that some effert should be put into addressing DV where initiator is female? Would it be reasonable that when the government runs a anti-DV campaigns that some of the perpetrators to be shown as female (with male or female partners)? That some attempt is made to address female initiated violence.

61, I suspect that like others your own experience has blinded you to the other side of the issue of violence. I'm not a skilled fighter, my ability to reliably block punches and thrown objects is not something I'd like to have to rely upon. It's also likely that in attempting to block blows that I would leave bruises on the arm that was behind a punch. Frankly the idea that it's better to tell men to rely on their size or fighting skills than to tell women not to initiate violence disgusts me.

R0bert