The last white ribbon
Barbara Kay,

<Lepine-generated male-bashing is often justified by the fact that more men kill women than women kill men. But who would justify a woman-bashing tribute to Dann's victims on the grounds that statistically more women than men abuse children (which they do)? What is lost in the emotional shuffle is that only a statistical sliver of either sex is violent to anyone, so all gender-demonizing impulses are sexist and immoral.>
http://www.barbarakay.ca/archive/20071205Thelastwhiteribbon.html

Why I Won't Wear A White Ribbon
by Adam Jones (1992)

<The sour aftertaste of the diatribes lingers on in many of the commemorative projects surrounding December 6. It's the main reason I refuse to join in the national White Ribbon Campaign organized by a Toronto men's group. The campaign seems based on a notion of universal male guilt. It's a framework that does little to honour the victims of the massacre, and nothing to acknowledge the real pain most men felt in the wake of Lépine's rampage.

The claim that all men must share responsibility for the violence some men do to some women has become a veritable mantra over the last several years. Almost no-one has bothered to examine its foundations, or criticize the hypocrisy of its exponents.>
http://www.adamjones.freeservers.com/ribbon.htm

It is significant to note that Lepine was a victim of child abuse.

The article claims:"Worrying figures in a new study released last week "

There was no "new" study, there was a rehashing of previously-discredited misinformation from Michael Flood, who specialises in man-bashing "pro-feminist" pieces in lieu of anything actually academically sound. The author does his case no good by peddling his own misinformation about that "report".

As an example of the ways in which Flood's "research" can be misconstued, a week or so ago there was a story about a young woman who stabbed her brother in the stomach during an argument. Under Flood's definitions, she would be counted as one of the women who have experienced violence, just as all those women who assault their partners verbally or physically would be. Meanwhile, her brother, being male, doesn't get counted at all.

The author claims (somewhat incoherently):"Women are six times as likely as men to have been assaulted by a partner or ex-partner. This is deadly serious."

That's not what unbiased research from the ABS shows. in fact, it shows that women initiate assaults on men slightly more often than otherwise. When are we going to stop giving space to these bandwagon-riders who are so determined to "tell lies for women"? Surely if their case is sound they can rely on facts rather than fanstasy to support it?

Anti,

I've made my feelings known about the White Ribbon lot. Jack Marx did such a great send up of them...

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2309

JamesH, Antiseptic, US

Yeah … I know. It’s a terrible injustice the way women hog the gender-violence limelight like they do. Men just can’t get a look in. It’s enough to make you want to kick the wife's cat.

And those statistics! Yeah … right. If George W. Bush can win an election using electronic voter fraud, then women can certainly pull a similar stunt with electronic GV statistics fraud – aided and abetted by Michael Flood and other pathetic feminist Uncle Toms.

In fact, I read somewhere that feminist groups give classes on how to become a GV victim (and, of course, on electronic GV statistic fraud). One suggestion is for a woman to stand at one end of a room and do a Light Brigade-type charge straight across the room and into the opposite wall. She then takes mugshots of her swollen face, two black eyes and assorted broken bones, then rings the police, then her lawyer.

Another strategy is to dive headlong into the passenger seat of a passing car driven by a male motorist. She then refuses to get out of the car until the bemused motorist drives her to a remote spot and has sex with her while holding a knife at her throat. Then she hobbles off to the nearest police station in the hope of finding a gullible police officer to believe her story (that’s if she’s still alive).

Another strategy is to hand out GV questionnaires at places where women are likely to congregate – like pedicure parlours. If a woman fills out said questionnaire by saying she has been a victim of gender violence at least once since the age of 15, she gets a free copy of ‘The Idiot’s Guide to Pedicure Parlours’ and she goes into the draw for an all-expenses paid trip to the next UN Womens Forum in Venezuela or some other Marxist backwater.

Thank you Barbara, Adam, James H & Antiseptic for telling the truth, which is available to anyone with just a few mouse clicks to bring up Independent studies on violence in all its forms which tell a whole different story to the Todd Harpers of this world who have no intention of stopping violence when violence against men & boys is rampant & ok when used by women & girls.

Have a look at the amount of all forms of violence against males by women & girls on TV & in movies, of cause all this abuse is ‘funny’ because it is perpetrated by females.

The facts clearly prove Both genders need protection against violence not just women.

But that’s not what the media wants is it, wonder why eh?

"Women are six times as likely as men to have been assaulted by a partner or ex-partner."

Some definitions please. Are we talking about any form of physical assault or just the extreme end of the spectrum which is used to define "Domestic Violence", the end of the spectrum where physical strength is the issue?

A number of us spent considerable time on that issue recently on another thread. One of the points of concern which was agreed to by most who stuck with the discussion is that there is a serious problem with mix and match statistics. Where DV is defined around sustained physical intimidation of a partner (which in most cases will require greater physical strength to be effective) but other stats which are more reflective of any kind of intimate partner violence are then presented as though part of the DV picture.

The authors claim quoted above would appear to be doing just that.

"Fifty-seven per cent of women reported some level of physical and/or sexual harm since the age of 16 years according to the Australian component of the 2004 International Violence Against Women Survey, reported by the Australian Institute of Criminology. The 2005 Australian Bureau of Statistics' Personal Safety Survey found that nearly 3.1 million women, or two out of five reported having experienced physical or sexual violence at least once since the age of 15." is not talking about what I'm told anti-DV workers are describing when they talk about DV.

If the author is talking about "some level of physical and/or sexual harm" and plays gender games then he harms attempts to deal with more serious forms of DV where women are over represented. Such games don't help to break cycles of violence but rather perpetuate those cycles.

R0bert

I love these articles because, like the Muslim ones, they bring out the hardliners, each with a list of grievances that they spew over the posts like so much stale vomit. We should be able to talk about this without resorting to victimhood- on either side.

We must acknowledge one fact- men are far more likely to express frustration physically. This isn’t about value, just fact. (And no, I haven’t handed my penis to the radical feminists!)

Its biology and it starts from birth. Watch a mixed group of 2 year-olds (as I have) and its clear- the boys act out, the girls don't. Tens of thousands of years of specialization has made men, kilo for kilo, stronger and more aggressive than women. For most of that time it has been an advantage. That suddenly our society has less need of those traits doesn't make them go away.

Women, especially in teaching and childcare, need to stop punishing boys for being physical (yes girls, it happens- deal with it). Just the same as men need to acknowledge that these instincts are no longer valid in the modern age and stop condoning them in ourselves and others.

We were all young men once, so let’s not kid ourselves: we know what we thought about, said about women; we know how we used threats to get what we wanted and how good it felt. The girls manipulated eachother- we used our fists. But with age and civilization comes responsibility.

Beating the hell out of your wife because you have a crap job and you feel angry and frustrated is about the most cowardly and repugnant act I can think of. Yes, we are stronger- but it’s a rotten soul that thinks that’s justification.

Ignore the impetus for the white ribbon and look for the meaning behind it. It says that I’m man enough to control myself. And it says that I’m man enough to stand toe-to-toe with another cretin and say 'you are a coward for hitting your family'.

How can this be anything other than a celebration of male strength?

Sarcasm, SJF

I really wonder, how come after 30-40 years of DV re education, why is it still a problem? What is it that is not being addressed?

I do know that ETOH and drug abuse plays a significant role in DV, also so does mental illness, particularly when a person goes off their medication and becomes psychotic.

I noticed that female glassing victims seem to be likely to be glassed by another female.

The way I figure it is that if our society is really interested in reducing the level of violence, then all forms of violence must be addressed, seriously.

Of course women are more likely to be the victims of violence than men. If you want to hurt someone you use your best weapon and for a man it is probably going to be physical violence. For a woman it will be something else. This could not possibly be any different since men always have been and probably always will be bigger and stronger than women. If women were bigger and stronger than men the statistics would surely be reversed. There is not something innately violent about men – just an innate physical advantage.

Why is the discussion only ever about violence as if it were the only effective form of aggression. “Over two million children, have witnessed physical or emotional violence against their mothers.” Does this mean they have never witnessed emotional violence against their fathers or does it mean they were not asked? Does it perhaps mean that it doesn’t hurt men as much as women?

Many women do not want the discussion to be about aggression because they do not want to have to answer for their own part in the breakdown of relationships. Violence is never acceptable as a way of dealing with a problem but neither is any other form of aggression. Any ‘expert’ in family relationships that refuses to look at the complete picture is obviously trying to protect a more personal agenda.

I note the usual generalised abuse of men from SJF, along with the usual lack of anything of substance. Much easier to stand on the sidelines trying to be a smartarse than to actually try to keep up with the players, isn't it?

No one disputes that women sometimes get hurt in domestic situations, what I dispute is the author's facts and Michael Flood's ability to produce anything worth reading, let alone anything worth referring to. As R0bert has mentioned, conflating mutual arguments and controlling behaviours as "violence" is simply debasing the experience of real victims. As my Mum used to tell me, "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me". Sadly, the DV industry seems to be unclear on that point, which is hardly surprising, given the lack of genuine violence for them to use to justify their massive funding claims.

Here's a challenge, SJF: give us some unbiased references produced by reputable researchers that back up what the article claims. I recommend starting with the ABS, painful as you might find it to deal with reality rather than an ideological fantasy.

This Relates To This Topic

This is A Post That Will Be Continued As Their Is Not Enough Space In The Topic So Follow The Thread As Its In Sections Becuase You Are Only Allowed So Many Words On The Site This Is a Urgent Post For All Victims All FORGOTTEN AUSTRALIANS By Huffnpuff
Hi To All The Forgotten Australians Out Their Who Were In Orpthanages, Girls Homes, Boys homes Remand Centres State Ward Homes church State Run homes foster Homes Out Of Home Care
And Hello To Our Fellow Members Here On O.L.O, Those Of Us Whome Are Forgotten Australians And To Those Who are Not
If Our Country Is To Be A County The Way It Should Be
This Would Mean That The State Goverment Of New South Wales Should Stand Up For Us Victims,That were Raped And Abused In These State Institutions, that Were Under The Control Of The Goverment Of New South Wales And That Of Other States Of Australia ,
The New South Wales Sate Goverment Still To This Day Cover Up The Rapes And Rapes We Victims Sufferd While We Were Been made Their Slaves While Under State care
We Are The Real Victims The Goverment does Not Want The Public And The Communities To Know About Becuase it The Truth Is Too daming For The Goverment To addmitt The Truth Of What We Victims Suffered , By Those Very People That They Employed At These Institutions
I Know This From Experince i Had been Fighting For Justice For Over Ten Years in The New South Wales Court System Brown V State of New South Wales
This Case Was Lost In favour Of The State Of New South Wales Even When They Stipulated In The Court Room In Front Of The Judges That The record Log Books had Been destroyed Or Misplacsed Or Lost Excusion Books And misconduct Records The Stae Still Got away With This In The Court House So How are we Victims To get Justice Even When they say These documents have been destroyed Or Lost , and The Victim

continued
and The Victim had never Ever been aware That these documents could Never Be Found , Yet The Courts Still Protected The State Crown Lawyers in This Court case And left The Victim been raped All Over Again
I Can Only Hope That The State Of New South Wales Will Give Justice To Us Victims Of This State New South Wales, And When They Do , Give Justice To Us Victims And That The State take note Of Us Victims Who have Taken Our cases To The Courts For Justice But Were denide justice Have Us On The Top Of Their List To say sorry To And Give justice To Us as Of All The Victims
The Courts Of New South Wales Have Been Covering Up For The State Of New South Wales For Far To Long And Need To Be Held Accountable For Us Victims Who they have Thrown out The Court cases In Favour of The State
My Hope Of A High Court Appeal Are Over As No lawyer had The Guts To Take On This New South Wales Goverment, And I Stand By What Happend To Me At daruk Boys Home By The Said 2 Pedophiles Of That Institution Who Worked For The State Boys Home Daruk
I My Self Have Not The Abilty To Formulate The Documents For A High Court Case Of Which The Judge Would Proberly Still Cover Up For The State Anyway So For Ten Years Fighting For Justice The Right Way by The Law And Still Get Raped And Abused All Over Again, And The state lawyers Just Laugh In Your Face ,Because You Are A No One Today The 4th Of December 2008 Was The Last day To Lodge the Appeal To The High Court so because Of My Interlectual Ability I had no Hope Of having Any Documents drawn Up Fot An Appeal Verbally Yes i would And Could Put My case Forward But They Do Not Allow That

The way domestic violence has been politicised and propagandised is patriarchy in action, in all its machiavellian glory.

The point of this exercise is to NOT solve the problem. Keep expanding it and its appearance by tweaking and broadening the thing, introducing plausibly deniable bias thru selective application of terms and definitions. Never look too deep, do not approach the core issues as this is difficult territory, hard to resolve, resolution having little political utility.

Solving it would render a slew of intermediaries obsolete. Especially the wanna-be lancelots and the knights-in-shinny-armour sitting at the kings table of projected paranoia, fear and loathing. They dont really see it either. Their power over people is the objective and they do it by either creating or identifying a real or (preferably) perceived threat and/or fear (setting up the damsel-in-distress). They then set up a villian. Now these cowardly lancelots seeking manipulative power over women (and their children) step up and SAVE THE DAY that they threatened in the first place.

The real motivation... patriarchs want to control and oppress competitors (men) by, in this case, controlling and oppressing women and children (the 'vulnerable').

This is a multi-faceted game. These lancelot types keep themselves relevant, employed and validated. At the same time they have successfully used fear (felt by women) and guilt (felt by men) to get people to hold themselves down, in positions of subservience. In positions of DEPENDENCY. That is PARENT rule at its simplest, in this case apparently patriarchal (public, open displays of power). Behind it of course is the other side of it, namely matriarchy (private, veiled power and influence).

The 'protect society's vulnerable' meme is extremely powerful and at base may be irrevocably instinctive... survival of the species. And this is the level on which the patriarchs (and matriarchs) play the game. ie they go to the very core of existence and coerce folks around truelly basic stuff, like the self-doubt that arises from the essential uncertainties and risks of this life which spawns a rich and fertile ground of emotional manipulation.

They're essentialy ruthless.

(cont)

(cont)

Refusing to confront the CYCLE of VIOLENCE perpetuates it... mother abuses son who learns the utility of abuse, then takes it out on the world, including his partner who then takes it out on her child(ren), repeating the cycle. This cycle has no beginning. Not addressing that is fundamental to parentalism. Doing so might solve the problem of fear, intimidation, force and authoritarianism... pillars of PARENT rule.

Worrisome are the 'true-believers', ensconsed in their true lies of self-deceit, blind to the folly of their method, instead believing they are doing good... the road to tyranny is paved with good intentions (and oblivious do-gooding hypocrites).

Wanna-be lancelots are unconscious of their true motivations. They are validation junkies who either didnt get enuff love or too much love from mummy. They're doomed to forever making up for their lack of childhood bossom or trying to get back to the warm, safe, unconscious glow of mother's soft breast and warm carress.

Beware the true myisogynists... chivalrous males, skilled at lulling you into a false sense of security, selling you false hope and empty promises. Mean while he will invent all manner of social insitution to control and oppress you, all in the name of making you feel safe, which you sort of will, but deep down you know its a frustrating lie. Before you know it, he's helped you to ring yourself in a panapticon of self-imprisonment.

A society that is mediated around 'parent rule' is a natural enough extension of procreation. Its problematic b/c parentalism is superior-mindedness, people are treated like children (we'll protect, guide, dictate to and think for you.) Men have had a lot of practice at it and for many it has become so ingrained that they're blind to it. Same goes doubly for women who are blind to their constant appeals for men to save/help, to the point women can become entitled about it.

The solution is for men to GET OUT of THE WAY of women and leave them to SHOVEL THEIR OWN GRAVEL... which they are more than capable of doing.

I finally got around to watching the Sex and the City movie last night. I enjoyed it but I'm still pondering the portrayal of relationship violence in the film.

The physical violence which was depicted was low level, the victims were not at any real risk of physical harm, they did not appear to be concerned for their own physical safety but the use of physical violence against a partner seemed to go unchallenged in the film. The violence depicted were the result of angry outbursts rather than any long term attempt to control the other party by the use of violence. Never the less what was depicted was still physical violence against a partner.

Possibly there was no intended message, maybe the violence was depicted to make the incidents seem more real rather than to send a message about intimate partner violence.

What impressions do others who have seen the film have of the portrayal of violence? Does the film perpetuate the idea that if you are angry or hurt enough that it's Ok to assault a partner? Is there a good side to the way the violence was depicted?

R0bert

I have not seen the film but it is in my opinion never OK to assault a partner. If you cannot resolve a problem without resorting to violence or even verbal abuse then there is something seriously wrong with your problem solving skills.

I think when people behave violently it is nearly always a reaction to some other unresolved situation that is triggered by the behaviour of the partner. The outburst is usually way out of proportion to the current event. A person may think their partner is unjust when they fail to take out the garbage. It triggers feelings of anger associated with some other more serious unjust situation in their lives in either the present or past such as a very unjust employer or a fiercely controlling mother. They are reacting to that situation rather than the present one.

This in no way absolves anyone from responsibility for their violence because those underlying causes are also just problems for which there are probably solutions which they do not want to face.

I don’t think films perpetrate the idea that it is OK but rather just depict the way people behave for the sake of realism. Often when you do see violence depicted in film you can also see the underlying causes that are triggered and these issues are often the real story of the drama. I don’t think a film like Sex and the City would want to go there.

Thank you for the article - very good.

I find it a relief and heartening that there is a body of men now standing forth to demonstrate a new type of masculinity - a better way of relating to and valuing women and children in general, and the women and children who love them.

The courage of men like the author, Michael Flood, others like those and men who subscribe to white ribbon day make an important statement in standing apart from the dominant culture where violence against women and children is perpetrated and/or condoned.

For those who refer to ABS facts and statistics:

http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/sheets/rs7/rs7.html

Pynchme:"The courage of men like the author, Michael Flood"

I guess it does take a certain type of courage to stand up in front of people as an "academic" and misquote statistics.

I refer you to the ABC: "On Monday November 17, 2008 ABC News Online and ABC Radio carried stories reporting the findings of a study into the impact of violence on young people. The study was commissioned by the White Ribbon Foundation. It reported, in part, that “one in every three boys believe it is not a big deal to hit a girl". The author of the report, Dr Michael Flood, has advised the ABC that this finding was in fact wrong. Dr Flood's team transposed information in compilation of that part of the report. The original report by the National Crime Prevention 2001 study upon which much of the White Ribbon report was is based made no reference to "boys hitting girls" In fact the report referred to "girls hitting boys".

As references to this incorrect information formed a significant part of the our online news story, as well as an interview conducted for the AM program. The online news story has been amended accordingly. The AM transcript has been edited and the story audio removed."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/corrections/

Now, perhaps a few of the knee-jerkers here might like to show their own form of courage and admit they were wrong to accept the incompetent Flood's words as believable?

At the same time, perhaps they might like to consider what else he has "transposed" in the interests of pandering to the "pro-feminists" he relies on for funding? The guy is as shonky as a used car salesman.

I also note that some genuine academics are undertaking a study on IPV directed at men.

http://www.ecu.edu.au/pr/mediareleases_show.php?release=0000000876

What, no one coming to the defence of the incompetent Michael Flood? I can't seem to find anything from the White Ribbon people decrying the blatant misquoting of statistics to create an impression that is directly opposite to the real findings of the NCP2001 report. I wonder why?

Where are the cries of outrage that 1 in 3 girls considers it no big deal to hit a boy? SJF, Pynchme, you seem to have gone all coy all of a sudden.

What a bunch of hypocritical lightweights.

Michael Flood has just demonstrated his high level of integrity by drawing attention to an error.

That doesn't detract from the large body of additional information provided or from findings in other studies that cite similar figures regarding negative attitudes towards women of one sort or another. In fact, the idea that 1/3 of boys thought that violence against women was acceptable might represent an improvement from earlier statistics. One project done some years ago, if I recall correctly, cited a figure somewhere around 50%.

Michael Flood and his cohorts represent men who seek to establish respectful relationships. I doubt that he or they would support any violence from one partner to another, regardless of the sex of the perpetrator.

Anitseptic,
thought you may be interested in this link,

http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/38333/20050426-0000/www.kittennews.com/kn_mag/2004mag/02_feb04mag/jamesh_09.htm

<Many people who deal with computers on a daily basis know that the quality of the information input, directly influences the quality of the analysis - garbage in, garbage out. Simple isn’t it?

For decades now research results have driven social policies. In areas from child support to domestic violence>

Pynchme:"Michael Flood has just demonstrated his high level of integrity by drawing attention to an error."

Michael Flood had no choice: his integrity is non-existent.

Pynchme:"the idea that 1/3 of boys thought that violence against women was acceptable might represent an improvement from earlier statistics"

Are you stupid or just dishonest? The statistic was that 1/3 of girls regard it as acceptable to hit boys, not the other way around. How many more times doyou need that repeated before it sinks in?The success of Flood's misquote is that dimwits like you will still seek to use it, regardless of the fact that it's wrong. If Flood and the rest of his bandwagon-riders were serious about correcting the error, they'd have published a great big press release saying "1 in 3 girls regard it as acceptable to hit boys" and had it front page, just as their original (I suspect deliberately misquoted) press release was front page.

Now, how about that howl of outrage that 1/3 of girls regard boys as a reasonable target for violence?

Antiseptic, I said the "idea" - I didn't quote that as a statistic. Are you stupid or just dishonest (as usual) ? You're the one constantly misquoting.

Here's another stat for you that, if you read some of the links provided, you'd know by now: not ONE male participant in a study of teenage attitudes thought that girls hitting boys was problematic - they were "amused" by it. You could, of course, join with Michael Flood and Co. in seeking to change socio-cultural attitudes that support violence and that set men up both as perpetrators and as targets (mostly of each other).

Here are a couple of links for you, obtained from the post by James. Do make an effort to read them and I urge you to be less hysterical and more objective when weighing them up:

http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/38333/20050426-0000/www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/ti82.pdf

and this:

http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/38333/20050426-0000/www.kittennews.com/cgi-bin/kn_opinion/opinioncf7d.html?topic=999966

versus:

http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/25849/20081113-0034/www.bullyingnoway.com.au/talkout/profiles/researchers/michaelFlood.html

Information from the first link is hardly disputable - concrete facts about homicide/suicide in the context of DV - twenty families per year.

The next link - the writer to whom James referred.

The last link - Michael Flood.

Now ask yourself: what is the first writer contributing to stopping violence as cited in the study (1st link). Then ask yourself what, in all reasonableness, anyone could object to in Michael Flood's exposition.

Which writer is doing most to stop violence - which approach makes more sense? I wonder if you are capable of being intellectually competent, honest and rigorous enough to objectively weigh that up.

Pynchme:” I said the "idea"”
Well, your “idea” is wrong, just as the original article was wrong.

Now, to your links: the first is in relation to murder-suicides (in general, not “in the context of DV”). While these are tragedies, they’re hardly a mainstream problem. If they are, then the 1500-odd men who die each year through suicide are an even bigger problem and nobody seems terribly concerned about them, unless they also kill or hurt a woman, of course. The report is also low on any kind of analysis of such incidents involving female perpetrators, which is typical of many such reports.

The second is a comment on a disgraceful mistreatment of such a tragedy by Four Corners. Enough said about that.

Pynchme:” Then ask yourself what, in all reasonableness, anyone could object to in Michael Flood's exposition.”

The fact is that Flood and his fellow-travellers take the distinctly non-rigorous approach of deciding on a result and doing what they can to make data fit, whether it’s real data or not. If anyone other than a “pro-feminist” tried that, they’d be laughed off the faculty. Fortunately for Flood, there are enough dim-bulbs who want to believe what he’s saying for him to get away with it.
As for objections, I object to the fact that he holds women entirely blameless for escalation of violent behaviours, that he never mentions women’s violence against men except to attempt to minimize it and he never mention female violence against other females at all. In the world of Flood, women are pure and innocent (and always hapless victims) while men (except him, of course) are brutes who have no capacity for self-control, but are nonetheless responsible for their actions (and those of women). Frankly, it’s insulting to both genders and panders to the weak-minded.
I look forward to the outcomes of the research being undertaken at ECU. It may show some of the impact on men of the violence that 1/3 of girls think is acceptable to use against them. Flood is no doubt preparing some more fairy-stories to confuse the issue.

Trade 215

I hope it's not too late for you to read this, but I found your two posts of Friday, 5 December, absolutely amazing! I often wonder why I bother with OLO, but well thought-out, well written posts like these remind me of the reason.

I’ve never been quite sure where you are coming from, as I’ve often found your posts a little dense at times and perceived some hostility to feminism in your posting history. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood.

However (and if I have read your posts right), I wholeheartedly agree that all forms of violence in society follow a top-down power distribution, with the real issue being social control – of men by men, of women by men, of children by adults, of out-groups by in-groups, of nature by humans … and on it goes.

phanto

'There is not something innately violent about men – just an innate physical advantage.'

Agreed. I've often argued this on OLO - or at least used a similar slant. In a culture that depends so much on violence to get what it wants, the gender with the greater physical advantage is the more valuable commodity. That is why attempts to 'shame' men into rejecting violence can only go so far, as they are being asked to reject the very thing that makes them valuable.

Similarly, women use emotional aggression, not because it is innate, but because it's the only 'acceptable' violence society allows them.

I've been away from OLO for a while ... so pardon another long post to catch up...

Pynchme

Some interesting links there.

Unfortunately, however, for every piece of solid evidence that Australian rates of violence against women are rising in direct proportion to the death by thousand funding cuts to DV/GV and general women's advocacy resources over at least the last 10 years, there is a mountain of well-funded Menz Rights Movement ‘research’ (such as the prolific but discredited Conflict Tactics Scale) to ‘prove’ that there is a hidden violence epidemic against men.

Ultimately, WATM (What About the Menz) arguments seek to dismantle the few paltry gains women have made in having DV/GV taken seriously as a social issue. While professing to be about ‘balance’, the real WATM agenda is distraction.

JamesH

‘Sarcasm, SJF’

Moi. But of course! Plus a few dollops of Swiftian malevolence and just a touch of condescension.

Antiseptic

‘[SJF] Much easier to stand on the sidelines trying to be a smartarse than to actually try to keep up with the players, isn't it?’

Yep! Too right! You’re just way too smart for me … and for everyone else in the world too. (See also my response to James above.)

R0bert

Re Sex in the City movie … No, I haven’t seen it. However, having seen one episode of the pitiful TV series, I don’t doubt that the movie would contain some horrific scenes of women slapping men’s faces, which must be truly terrifying to watch.

And, while we’re at it, I wonder if you’ve seen the 10,000 or so films and TV series made about serial killers who abduct, rape, torture, mutilate and finally kill a succession of women – holding them hostage for several hours, days, weeks, months or sometimes years, while some intrepid (usually male) detective has to decipher all the cleverly diabolical clues left by the evil mastermind before he (the mastermind) is brought to justice and the women of the world can feel warm, fuzzy and protected again

My description of the violence in the film
"The physical violence which was depicted was low level, the victims were not at any real risk of physical harm, they did not appear to be concerned for their own physical safety but the use of physical violence against a partner seemed to go unchallenged in the film. The violence depicted were the result of angry outbursts rather than any long term attempt to control the other party by the use of violence. Never the less what was depicted was still physical violence against a partner."

SJF's attempts to divert the reader and misrepresent what was said, "I don’t doubt that the movie would contain some horrific scenes of women slapping men’s faces, which must be truly terrifying to watch."

So typical of the way discussion of gender violence is played by those who want to play sexist games rather than work towards solutions. SJF if you really care about stopping violence then at least try to be honest. Have a think about what I've said. Have a think about how many of the films you describe portray the person initiating the violence in a sympatetic compassionate light, how many of them portray the violence as something that just happens, undeserving of rebuke, undeserving of comment and possibly justified.

R0bert

http://www.law.fsu.edu/Journals/lawreview/downloads/304/kelly.pdf

Disabusing the definition of domestic violence and the role of the feminist state.

Domestic Violence Policies Where did we go wrong?
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/13076/20021019/www.nuancejournal.com.au/documents/three/saran2.pdf

Now SJF writes about the discredit conflict tactic scale, which by the way was used by feminist researchers, that is until other researchers used it to support their research which conflicted with feminist advocacy. Only when other researchers investigating female perpetrated violence did the conflict tactic scale get discredited by feminist researchers.

(In)valid feminist research consists of only asking questions that support their gender bias.

Feminist researchers (almost) never ask women if they have initiated violence, the usual excuse is when women commit violence it is allegedly in self defense.

<Ultimately, WATM (What About the Menz) arguments seek to dismantle the few paltry gains women have made in having DV/GV taken seriously as a social issue. While professing to be about ‘balance’, the real WATM agenda is distraction.>

I wonder if these claims made by SJF are spurious?

SJF writes that DV is a serious social issue, then how come she is so resistant to examining all aspects of DV?

would it not be better to prevent Dv from occuring, and to do this would mean examining all the factors involved, not just the factors deemed to be politically correct by individuals who strong gender bias.

SJF must have an investment of some type in the feminist industry. There is no other plausible explanation for denying some basic facts and reasoning contained in each of the posts criticising this writer.

Well, that's cleared that up: the pro-feminists on this site are obviously in favour of violence against men, as several days have elapsed and there has not been a squeak from any of the hypocrites about the fact that 1 in 3 girls regard violence against boys as acceptable. Hardly surprising for hypocritical lightweights.

SJF:"You’re just way too smart for me"

I can see how you'd come to that conclusion, but our relative intelligence is not at issue - the facts are clear and you're simply too stupid or dishonest to grasp the nettle and admit you are wrong. You and the egregious Flood are much better at "telling lies for women" than exercising integrity.

Antispetic,

my guess is that most, if not all hypocrits will rationalize this is as it being OK for girls to hit boys, because:

1) boys must have done something to deserve it
2) girls dont do as much damage as boys can
3) after years of oppression it is OK for girls to commit violence

<Gloria Steinem once made this breath-taking statement, "The patriarchy requires violence or the subliminal threat of violence in order to maintain itself." And feminist icon Andrea Dworkin spewed this shocking tirade: "Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman." >

It would appear that SJF is a 'Steimen feminist.'

http://www.ifeminists.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.406

I constantly find it fascinating that definitions of domestic violence include things like, financial, emotional abuse, yet when the Dv advocates argue they fall back to the position of physical violence, where regardless of who may have initiated the violence, women generally come off second best.

With around 20 Dv murders a year, that makes getting murder in a DV situation a one in a million chance(considering Australias population is around 20mill).

Don't forget this has also become an institutional in many people like Clive Hamilton, making it a menace that is hard to deal with, seeing as the propaganda is given a direct stream to most media sources and political groups, unchallenged.

You will find it in everything from education programs in universities, to pornography crusaders like Hamilton, who are envious of the freedoms and self-expression of the younger generations and seek to control them using emotive topics such as female victimisation that saturate the media.

Antiseptic - I suggest you learn how to use Google before making your pronouncements. You might recall my response to a claim on another thread about a lack of services for men, where I responded with at least a dozen links (many more than a dozen I think it was) to services concerned specifically with men's needs.

As a memory jogger re: male suicide has been a primary focus of mental health services for many years now. Not only are the full range of services available to all citizens, but most area health services also employ people to respond to additional subsections of the community: such as rural males (" Drought Counsellor", for example. Other services provide financial counselling and so on.) One site that you could check for that is Beyond Blue. I think that if you check the research and with various services, you'll find that as many men as women use MH and Drug and Alcohol services. In some services you'll find a higher percentage of male clientele.

If you have some figures to back up your claim that men only receive assistance when a woman is involved, I'd like to see them.

Also you keep citing a statistic - can you please put the exact wording in quotation marks and provide a link so that I can see exactly what you mean.

Lastly, I see that you were not up to the challenge in intellect and empathy that was set for you. Well one can't do much for you then. You'll just have to soldier on as you are.

To all the fellows gnashing teeth about feminism; it's clear that your ignorance knows no bounds. You are all so accustomed to reading every single day about rape and murder of women that you accept that as the norm - as the way the world should be ordered.

If women were killing and hurting men at the same rate you'd be genuinely outraged and fed up with living in perpetual fear. You would want better than that for your daughters (and your sons; many of whom will be victimized too by the same 'natural' way of ordering society). You have never read anything about feminism that hasn't been twisted and fed to you by your misogynistic icons. You need to bear in mind that not all research on which social policy is based has been done by women or feminists or feminist sympathizers.

For the poster who referred to the way in which instruments have been used to measure violence, here is a link to a study done by fellows at the Australian Institute of Criminology:

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/ti195.pdf

They explain that unless sufficient qualitative information is gathered to elucidate quantitative data, any 'research' will remain superficial.

They have some interesting material in there about youth attitudes to violence.

To those amongst you who carry on about when I or whomever else posts a response; I post when I can. I don't feel obligated to comply with whatever schedule you dictate.

Pynchme I can't quite remember but are you not an American troll, whose career depends on the propogation of feminist industry and propaganda?

I remember telling you about glennsacks.com It's impossible to be a feminist at an intellectual level when you read many of the facts and evidence of the harm done by feminism raised on the site.

Pynchme,

you asked me not to get so hysterical, yet you post;

<If women were killing and hurting men at the same rate you'd be genuinely outraged and fed up with living in perpetual fear>

The majority of male murders/assaults are committed by other men. I know that there are men who are bigger, stronger and healthier than me. But I choose not to live in perpetual fear, even though I as a male are much more likely to be assaulted or murdered than any member of your gender.

Richard L Davis wrote an interesting article at Ifeminists.

http://www.ifeminists.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.389

<A recent report by the CDC “Surveillance for Violent Deaths — National Violent Death Reporting System, 16 States, 2005 (SVD)", documents that approximately 30% of suicides are precipitated by problems between intimate partners that lead to fatalities.

The SVD documents a domestic violence tragedy that remains largely unexplored. The SVD notes, that of the 16 reporting states, problems between intimate partners precipitated 2,301 of the male suicides and 439 of the female suicides.>

So basically men are much more likely to commit suicide that are precipitated by domestic problems between partners.

Pynchme,

'there is a body of men now standing forth to demonstrate a new type of masculinity - a better way of relating to and valuing women and children in general, and the women and children who love them.'

Powerful stuff. So, generally, men have previously defined themselves by not valuing women, not even the women and children who love them. It's only the few men who are now willing to participate in an event designed to make the entire male sex feel culpable for an entire day in the public eye that value women and children. Stand up and profess your guilt for being male, or we will know deep down you are a violent abuser! Sounds like Salem.

'the dominant culture where violence against women and children is perpetrated and/or condoned.'
So because something exists in society or culture it's implicitly condoned? I'd say violence against men is more condoned than violence against women and children.

'If women were killing and hurting men at the same rate you'd be genuinely outraged and fed up with living in perpetual fear.'
Ah, but men are killing and hurting men at a much higher rate than women. But I suppose since men are responsible for all crimes of other men they had it coming. Men all have equal strength too, so it's always an even contest. In fact I often slap huge guys in the face when they say something I don't like, but it's ok, they never hit me back because that would be well out of order.

'To those amongst you who carry on about when I or whomever else posts a response; I post when I can. I don't feel obligated to comply with whatever schedule you dictate'
And I for one don't feel obliged to comply with any reading material you dictate. Rather than putting the onus on other readers to read what I want them to read, I do the work myself and quote the parts that support my arguments.

Pynchme:"male suicide has been a primary focus of mental health services for many years now"
"One site that you could check for that is Beyond Blue. "

From Beyond Blue's site, their page entitled "Research Topics of interest:
http://www.beyondblue.org.au/index.aspx?link_id=6.819

The four subjects mentioned are
1. Perinatal Depression
2. Pets and Animal Therapy
3. Same Sex Attracted (Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual)
4. Depression in elite athletes

Which of those research topics is specifically about males?

Further, a search for research on their site reveals just 1 document relating specifically and solely to men, while there are at least 8 documents specific to women, motly in the context of post-natal depression. I suppose we should be grateful even one got through the screening process.

Pynchme:"can you please put the exact wording in quotation marks and provide a link so that I can see exactly what you mean."

As you're so fond of links, you might like to refer to the link I provided. You might also like to check the National Crime Prevention 2001 study which was the primary source that Flood misquoted.

Ask yourself how a "peer-reviewed" paper was able to be published with such an obvious and glaring deficiency as to reverse the meaning. Then ask yourself why I hold Flood and his fellow-travellers in contempt.

Pynchme:"If women were killing and hurting men at the same rate"

As others have said and as I have said repeatedly, men harm men far more frequently and men kill themselves far more frequently. Just recetly there have been 2 high-profile men commit suicide, which each got one day's coverage in the media. When a female newsreader did the same a year or so ago, the issue was covered for weeks.

And I note you've still not condemned the horrifying statistic that 1/3 of girls regard boys as legitimate targets of violence.

At least you're a consistent hypocrite.

R0bert

‘Have a think about how many of the films you describe portray the person initiating the violence in a sympatetic compassionate light, how many of them portray the violence as something that just happens, undeserving of rebuke, undeserving of comment and possibly justified.’

OK. Let me get this straight. The astonishingly prolific serial-killer genre (and the crime genre in general), which routinely takes abduction/mutilation/rape/femocide to the level of an art form, is acceptable because a negative judgement is made against the perpetrator – i.e. he is finally caught or killed (while at the same time being routinely portrayed as exceedingly clever and often glamorous).

However, the age-old dramatic convention of female-slaps-man’s-face etc is not acceptable because no negative judgement is being made against the face-slapper. (However, it should be noted that the on-screen male who gets his face slapped has usually committed an act of betrayal or similar against the woman who slaps him. This is not meant as an excuse for the violence, but it does set a dramatic context for judging it.)

Believe it or not, I do understand where you are coming from. I’m playing devil’s advocate here because the problem I see is that you are trying to use the same moral barometer for two forms of on-screen/culture-based violence that belong in totally different moral ballparks.

This is what I TOTALLY reject about WATM arguments regarding DV and GV – however well meaning or well argued. To continue the ballpark analogy, the issues of GV against men and GV against women (except in a few extreme cases) DO NOT inhabit a level playing field.

Advocate for a better deal for male victims of GV and general violence by all means, but please stop constantly bringing it back to some perceived unfairness that women are taking away men’s 'justice' space. Women have enough GV problems to deal with, without having to feel ashamed of their struggle to get society to adequately address it.

Pynchme

Atta girl ... You're doing great!

For Pynchme, here's another link from her favourite site, the AIC.

http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/afrc8/fitzroy.pdf

Some quotes:"Women commit between 31-50 percent of physical assaults on children.
Mothers commit almost 50 percent of the recorded infanticide and women perpetrate between 2-7 percent of sexual assaults against children.8 It is worth noting that often researchers identify that, for example, 69 percent of perpetrators of such and such crime are men, but then fail to discuss who perpetrated the remaining 31 percent."
"This absence may reflect a general understanding that men are the majority of perpetrators of child assaults, however it
may also reflect a denial of the assault of children by their mothers.As a feminist researcher interested in critical analyses of violence, such silences are disturbing but not really surprising."

A "feminist" interested in critical thinking. How did she manage to avoid correction of such thought-crimes?

Another quote:
"As we got further into the work, what I discovered, he was responding to her violence. She had been belting up their disabled child, in a wheelchair. So, somehow or other, this cycle started and she was linked into the women’s outreach centre, and he was linked into corrections (Belle: 4).
This last example clearly indicates:
· the different beliefs held by the corrections and women’s services sectors as to who is the main perpetrator of family violence. Such beliefs can result in a focus on the violence of the husband and a denial of the violence perpetrated by the mother. Consequently as Belle described, the mother is defined as a ‘victim’ and referred to victim support services, whilst the husband is defined as the ‘offender’ and placed within the criminal justice system."

That sounds like a familiar claim, doesn't it? And it's not being made by a "patriarchal" man, but a social worker commenting on a case.

Women can be and often are equally as culpable for initiating and escalating violence as men. The increasingly strident claims to the contrary are simply insupportable. Allowing such an imbalance in legal responsibility for such culpability is creating a massive amount of resentment and stopping progress in combatting violence.

'...without having to feel ashamed of their struggle to get society to adequately address it.'

That's simple SJF. If you're honest in your arguments, PR tactics to 'raise awareness' and use of statistics, there is no need to feel ashamed.

Also setting up a government campaign, with the government as adjudicator on all violent domestic disputes, which designates men are at fault because only male violence (including yelling) is a problem seems to get a lot of men off side. Funny that.

If you're gonna set up a campaign based on universal male guilt, attempting to make all men feel culpable unless they repent all the sins of their gender in public, it's best to run it in an honest way to try and maintain the scarce good will you have left, or at least maintain some credibility.

SJF, thanks for the response.

I don't think that this is about "constantly bringing it back to some perceived unfairness that women are taking away men’s 'justice' space", but I do believe that many of the messages we get from a variety of source normalise or legitimise female assaults on males.

I'm fairly confident that it rarely does so for male assaults of females and pondering the messages about male violence against males. I think that the message there is mixed, I've heard enough calls from footy commentators and fans to "bring back the biff" to know plenty still see actual violence as entertaining.

I get your point about criminals being glamorised in many portrayals, I'd still see that as different to having some of the main characters assaulting a partner without any censure.

I think that those who want to reduce DV need to focus on breaking cycles of violence and that is not achieved by ignoring female violence no matter how minimal you consider the direct impacts.

Robert

R0bert> "Glamourising of criminals?"

This is getting ridiculus...very quickly. Who is saying this is a bad thing? And in what forms?

Antispetic, you're so dishonest that you really waste my time and everyone else's too with your silliness, but thank you for providing a platform for corrections to be made.

1. The quotes that you posted are meaningless unless people read the whole report. I'm not going to bother pasting; because there is too, too much there, including the author's conclusions, that do not reflect what you're implying.

2. I have read the following numerous times and I just can't see the quote that you keep repeating. That's why I asked you to be specific.

http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/www/Ncphome.nsf/Page/3469A76EF45999CBCA256B430004CBC6?OpenDocument

http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/www/Ncphome.nsf/Page/8359FA1DA07547AACA256B43000DC4F0?OpenDocument

http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/www/rwpattach.nsf/viewasattachmentPersonal/E24C1D4325451B61DE7F4F2B1E155715~ypadv25-201.pdf/$file/ypadv25-201.pdf

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/ti195.pdf

- and others listed here:

http://www.aic.gov.au/research/jjustice/prevention/violence.html

The closest I could find to your statement is that young men and women were classified into groups made up of pro violence and anti violence attitudes - and various percentages agreed that certain acts of violence were acceptable. Just prior to the listing of those classifications, however, the researchers also listed the indicators that characterized youth with pro violence attitudes.

Maybe I am just missing it and if so, please point it out. Otherwise I can only assume that you're lying again.

3. Your selectivity in regard to the beyond Blue website is really just reprehensible. Can you explain why you do these silly things? Why you need to lie this way?

Beyond Blue has two out of three adverts targeted specifically for men; the 3rd is for PND. Beyond Blue provides links to and is one of 20 organizations involved in the NSW Farmers Association MH Network. Have a look at the organizations involved: the broad spectrum of services (also note how many women are working to assist rural people, especially men, with various stressors that impact on their MH.)

http://www.nswfarmers.org.au/mental_health_network
http://www.beyondblue.org.au/index.aspx?link_id=84

A book listing research and projects undertaken by Beyond Blue 2001-2007:

http://www.beyondblue.org.au/index.aspx?link_id=6.993&tmp=FileDownload&fid=949

Just FYI as well: http://www.beyondblue.org.au/index.aspx?link_id=105.898&oid=226

and

http://www.beyondblue.org.au/index.aspx?link_id=104.1006

Those links don't exhaust all that's provided there.

Btw: Posts have been made vilifying people with an opposing view; including claiming that I'm an American Troll. None of those characterizations are sensible and none are pertinent to discussion of issues

Usual Suspect and others who referred to the fact that men commit more violence towards other men than towards women. (Btw: Does that make violence towards women ok or unimportant?)

The crux of the matter is that most violence occurs between men who are barely acquainted, away from home and very often within a context of alcohol and drug use. There is a certain bravado attached to it as well.

In contrast, most violence perpetrated against women and children occurs in the home and by men they are supposed to be able to trust.
Read some of the research provided re: how violent people seek to justify the abuse.

Someone mentioned violence against children perpetrated by women and is usually neglect and physical violence such as hitting. I condemn any such violence. Bear in mind that numbers for women would be higher in such categories because women carry most responsibility for child care. The greatest amount of physical and sexual abuse of children is perpetrated by step/substitute fathers and other male relatives and friends; while step mothers much less frequently perpetrate child abuse. While natural fathers do sexually and physically abuse their children; they are the men least likely to do so.

As to concerns about feeling that men have to feel guilty. They don't. I don't feel guilty about other women who are violent and cruel - I condemn them. I know that I am not cut of the same cloth. I don't understand why men feel threatened and feel bound to deny the trepidations of brutal others. What's so hard about just condemning their behaviour and separating yourselves from it? Why so defensive?

I am reading the other link that a poster provided for me - looks good; thanks for that. A response, if one is warranted, will have to wait for 24.

(SJF - thanks for the thumbs up :D)

Pynchme>"Btw: Posts have been made vilifying people...including claiming that I'm an American Troll. None of those characterizations are sensible and none are pertinent..."

- Trying out the victimisation card? Nice, but it's lame and cheap.

- Your definition of "vilifying" blows just as much. We can all play those games: "Pynchme an American is vilifying Australians on an Australian website."

- It's both very "pertinent" and "sensible" to find out if American activists might be posting on an Australian website with a specific, corrupt agenda.

<Usual Suspect and others who referred to the fact that men commit more violence towards other men than towards women. (Btw: Does that make violence towards women ok or unimportant?)>
Pynchme

Basically by concentrating on violence against women, ignores the larger issue of violence in our society.

But I will re-interate, are we talking purely about physical violence resulting in injury or are we including other definitions such as emotional, financial abuse etc.

Secondly the duluth model is about a cycle of violence, so do we count one off incidences?

Feminist advocacy researchers are hypocrits, because firstly the definition of DV has been expanded to include behaviour like emotional manipulaton and financial abuse etc, and then they try to discredit the conflict scale used by Straus.

They want emotional manipulation treated as seriously as physical violence which results in severe injury, yet take great pains to discredit researchers that show women can and do commit DV.

R0bert

‘I get your point about criminals being glamorised in many portrayals, I'd still see that as different to having some of the main characters assaulting a partner without any censure.’

I’d be interested in seeing what film, TV or other cultural examples you would use to illustrate this. (This is a genuine request – NOT a ploy to nitpick and argue.)

To continue the Sex and the City example … my take on the ‘female violence’ that I’ve seen in my limited exposure to the show – i.e. face-slapping, ball-squeezing and martini facewashing – is that it’s an ultra-conservative, dumbed-down version of what Hollywood merchandises as the empowered New Woman. It’s the complete opposite of the feminist and/or progressive view of genuine female empowerment – which is about independence, not violence or control.

The important dramatic distinction with this female 'face-slapping' Hollywood convention (which goes back to at least the 1930s) is that the man is always in control. He may be getting knocked about, but he is not in danger of injury or death. In many cases, it serves the dramatic purpose of feisty foreplay.

(It also serves the underlying social purpose of keeping up the patriarchal pretence that women are not a physical threat to anyone, whereas men are – thus maintaining the illusion of male control. Which, I believe, is why this kind of female violence is ‘uncensured’ as you put it.)

By contrast, the Hollywoood serial-killer genre – with its nauseating obsession with female terror, bondage and mutilation – began its life in the immediate aftermath of the second-wave feminist era – about the early 80s. This is DEFINITELY NO coincidence!

Pynchme,

'Does that make violence towards women ok or unimportant?'
No. I was refuting your point that male on female violence is condoned. I countered with examples that show male on male violence is condoned, male on female violence is not (That's why men don't slap women back, but smack smaller men back). I thought you smart enough to grasp that.

'I don't feel guilty about other women who are violent and cruel - I condemn them. I know that I am not cut of the same cloth. I don't understand why men feel threatened and feel bound to deny the trepidations of brutal others. What's so hard about just condemning their behaviour and separating yourselves from it? Why so defensive?
'
You answer your own question really. 'Why so defensive?'. It's easy for you to separate yourself when you aren't constantly challenged to prove you are 'not cut of the same cloth', or else face constant aspersions such as you just cast.

Anyway, you have caught me out. I am defensive because I am guilty. You know why? I have raised my voice in a domestic dispute. That makes me guilty of domestic violence. Didn't you see the adverts? I have also used physical force to prevent my partner punching me. I once even used force to disarm her of a knife. Both times she was the aggressor, and I was injured, but I know I was in the wrong. The current environment of government as adjudicator makes any male who was involved in any relationship where violence occured (including yelling) guilty by default.

As Rudd said, 'there are no circumstances in which violence against women is acceptable.'

I would be surprised if there were many men who have never raised their voice in an argument, and so would be able to wear a white ribbon without being hypocritical. But as you say, these are the only men who value women and children in general, and the women and children who love them. These are the only men not under suspicion in this "great silent crime of our time".

Pynchme:” there is too, too much there, including the author's conclusions, that do not reflect what you're implying.”

From the paper's conclusion: http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/afrc8/fitzroy.pdf

”To conclude this paper, I would suggest that the capacity for violence is part of our humanity. This is a difficult statement to make as it implies a form of biological determinism that I, as a feminist, have always argued against. Feminist analyses have comprehensively argued against the notion of an innate human potential for violence and instead have critically examined the patriarchal ideology that underpins men’s choices to perpetrate violence. However, in seeking to make sense of women’s violence, I have come to the position that we need to incorporate both elements of this previously oppositional debate.”

As usual, dishonesty is the order of the day from you.

If you would like a copy of the report Flood misquoted, I suggest you contact the White Ribbon people: I’m sure they’d be keen to set the record straight.

As for Beyond Blue, the facts are indisputable: 8 pieces of research on depression in women versus one on the same in males. For the record, males commit suicide at roughly 4 times the rate of women.

My search was via the Beyond Blue website’s own search engine: http://www.beyondblue.org.au/index.aspx?link_id=6.979
I used the keywords “men” and “women” and discarded results that were common to both searches. If the results don’t fit your preconceptions, complain to them.

Pynchme:” In contrast, most violence perpetrated against women and children occurs in the home and by men they are supposed to be able to trust.”
As previously stated:” Women commit between 31-50 percent of physical assaults on children.
Mothers commit almost 50 percent of the recorded infanticide and women perpetrate
between 2-7 percent of sexual assaults against children.”
That would be assaults in the home, by their mother, whom the children are supposed to be able to trust. Glad to clear that up.

I note the deafening silence from the Pynchme. As usual, you and the bunch of hypocritical lightweights who stand on the sidelines yelling "you go grrrl" are far better at "telling lies for women" than acknowledging when your lies are exposed. No wonder you approve of Flood and his bunch.

JamesH, thanks for the links you provided. As always, they're of much interest.

US, you violent patriarch, fancy raising your voice?! Stand in line for immediate correction.

It could be the post count. American activists are even more ideological than Australian ones, because they rely more on political ideology than open and honest discussion.

I think now I understand something.

Firstly physical violence quite rightly is a serious issue, the feminist researchers then expanded the
definition to include things like emotional manipulation and financial abuse as dv, and want these issues treated as just as seriously as physical violence.

Once an disaggrement starts about dv rates, feminist fall back to the position of who can do the most damage physically. Disregarding their expanded definition of DV.

Secondly when blokes start arguing that men experience dv, feminist will argue that it is mostly men who commit the physical violence that results in injury.

In discrediting the use of the CTS, they say that all physical violence is not the same, yet by their definition of DV, emotional manipulation is as or is more damaging than physical violence.

so basically what the feminists are saying is that DV by men is more serious than DV by women.

So in dealing with the issue of DV, feminist only see one half of the problem.

JamesH>"yet by their definition of DV, emotional manipulation is as or is more damaging than physical violence. "

Do they make this claim?? Because it immediately defeats the whole basis of the politics/propaganda about DV... Women are good at emotional manipulation and I would say it's possible that they even excel in it to make up for physical deficiency.

I've read on glennsacks.com that in the USA at least, women tend already to use more subtle, or 'invisible' forms of physical DV, such as poisoning...which isn't recorded as DV there ..(if i recall the article correctly).

Hiya James,

Finally, re: your post on Page 6. Thanks for that very interesting link.

The report on which that article is based gives a comprehensive account of US deaths including suicide and homicide.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5703a1.htm#tab9

You say, "So basically men are much more likely to commit suicide that are precipitated by domestic problems between partners.." - but that summation is not quite correct; here's why:

The report states: "Intimate partner problems were cited as a precipitating factor in 33% of male suicides and in 26.1% of female suicides ..."

In crude numbers, there are more men than women dying of suicide. However, as a proportion of all suicides for each sex, the rates are not very different. Also, on every measure and for every reason more men die from suicide (and die from and commit homicide) than do females.

The report also points out that females attempt suicide more often (for all reasons) but men complete the act more often.

I don't think that report states it, but I have seen that attributed to the use of more violent means - men are more likely to own and use firearms; women are more likely to take an overdose. Where passive means are employed, intervention is more likely to occur to retrieve the situation. Where weapons are used, well, the act is more certain to be final.

Note too the use of alcohol and drugs (for both sexes).

Note too the mental health status of people who resort to suicide; many of whom were receiving MH care at the time of the attempt.

The picture is not uncomplicated. Those stats of course are for the US and I can't say much about how their health system operates. However, in Australia, men have every access to MH resources and many are in treatment for MH or drug and alcohol issues irrespective of what their domestic relationships situation or legal status may be.

cont'd

Cont'd:

The last time I looked, men were still dying at a higher rate than females, in every category, from birth until the grave. You might be interested in looking at accident and injury stats too. Greater risk taking behaviour accounts for some of those results.

re: Glenn Sacks. Yes Steele you have mentioned him before; but I was already aware of his activity.

Although I think on the whole that it's good that men have a means of advocacy and mutual support; I don't see him achieving anything useful towards helping any victim of violence. He does, however, incite a lot of hatred. For example, just read the comments of some of the people attracted to his and his associates' sites - they are vulgar and hateful.

He opposes funding for shelters and support services and restraining orders but doesn't suggest any way that victims can protect themselves or obtain help. That being the case, if men *are being victimized at the rates he claims, wouldn't he want them to have some means of protection?

I'm sure you'll all groan, but please watch this video to the end, and tell me what you think she should have done. Note that the man doesn't even raise his voice:

http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/09/18/video-on-domestic-violence/

Just FYI:

http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/08/6148/#more-6148

http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/victimdefendant/victimdefendant.html

I don't see how stopping legal and support services to *any victim of violence helps men; other than the men who want to keep the option of resorting to it. Aren't we all just opposed to violence?

Pynchme a disturbing video but it also demonstrates some of what I and others are concerned about.

It shows a very extreme form of controlling behaviour.
It mentions that one in four american women experience DV - I doubt very much that many experience DV at anything near that level.
It also says something like every 15 seconds a woman in america experiences DV just like that. Possibly true but I think that combined with the 1 in 4 message it's misleading. Without clarification it appears from those comments that one in four american men is as abusive as the man in the videa.

It's also worth noting that the abuse was verbal for years before it became physical, the victim was ground down emotionally before the physical abuse started. Thats something anybody with an abusive spouse can face.

Aren't we all just opposed to violence? I hope so but from the efforts that some go to in rejecting campaigns against all intimate partner violence I'm not sure. I think it would be relatively easy to change the message about intimate partner violence. Just get the public campaigns to start saying that all such violence and controlling behaviour is wrong, not just when it's done by men.

I'm not sure how we address the broader acceptance of violence. We need to change the stuff where being a tough guy is valued both by men and women. A lot of men seem to look up to the tough guys, I've mentioned calls for bringing back the biff before. I'm forever hearing comments by women about the appeal of the bad boy image. Gordon Ramsey seems to have a lot of appeal with women despite his public persona being very abusive. Nice guys don't seem to have the same appeal to a lot of women as the bad guys and that in itself will improve the status of the tough guys.

R0bert

pynchme,

So much bias...

'All the women in the study admitted to having physically assaulted their partners, but none of them expressed a motivation to terrorize or subjugate men.'

As if they would. As if the men would express such a motive either if asked.

'where survivors were arrested as a result of an exaggerated or false complaint filed by an abuser, usually in retaliation for measures that the survivor took to protect herself or her children.'

herself? Typical language of abuser=male, survivor=female.

'men tend to describe their own use of violence by focusing on what the woman did to "cause it." They minimize, shift blame, and deflect responsibility for the violence. '

Then it goes on to say all the reasons why women's violence isn't as bad, and that it's 'proactive' or retaliation. proactive! Laughable. Turn that around. Imagine a man saying his violence was proactive.

The whole study is an exercise in giving women the benefit of the doubt and not men. With mandatory arrest, when women started getting arrested for violence, police were getting the 'context' wrong. The 'context' being that only men are violent, or only men's violence is wrong, and women only use violence when they are 'survivors' of male violence.

Just to finish...

'batterers use a variety of non-criminal forms of abuse against their victimized partners, '

including social isolation (How many women manipulate and nag guys to stop them seeing friends? How much time do couples spend with the womans relatives compared with the males?)
control of family finances (Women do the majority of the spending in families)
constant criticism (What's nagging? Enough said.)
degradation, humiliation (I'd say women are more likely to tell intimate and/or embarassing details about their partner to friends)
threats to take custody of the children (I'd say this is the No.1 bargaining chip for women in unhappy marriages!)

All these behaviours that are just as common in women, are forms of control or abuse when done by men, but somehow not when done by women?

Robert,

I have never heard anyone rejecting campaigns against all intimate partner violence. In fact I'd love to even see such a campaign.

What I hear is men objecting to is the portrayal that any relationship that has violence by the man and the woman is all the mans fault. Just look at the study of pynchmes that looks to excuse all female violence and then critisizes male perpetrators for making excuses. How hypoctitical.

I object to the attitude that violent women need help and support and are really just victims but violent men need punishment. Of the use of words like 'insidious' and 'under-reported' and 'epidemic', to deliberately cast all men under suspicion. Of expanding the definition of violence to label a man who raises his voice as the same as a man who bashes his wife.

Every time I see domestic violence campaigns I feel guilty. And I have done nothing to be guilty for but protect myself. In fact I really ought to have protected myself better but for the attitude I was brought up with to protect women. I feel that because I have been with a violent partner, and hence in a violent relationship, and I am male, all suspicion rests with me.

I get further reinforcement when my wife goes to the early childhood centre and is asked as a matter of routine whether she is scared of me. It IS a witch hunt. What if a women is just scared of all men due to past relationships, or for cultural reasons thinks she should be? What happens if she answers yes to that question? One womans fear is every mans guilt it seems. My guilt is probably the fear I experienced when my partner was abusing me.

The way that study reads, any violence by women is justified out of fear. I'm probably a wuss, but I was pretty scared when I had an emotionally unstable partner weilding a knife at me, or when she came home drunk and having to worry whether she may turn nasty and start attacking me.

The situation for women will get worse as we import more immigrants who have slightly lower views of women. Also with our economy falling and other social problems also needing funding I imagine there will be less resources available to police domestic violence.

Usual Suspect, I was thinking of the supporters of the status quo of DV campaigns. Those who think that by addressing all family violence we are somehow trying to hide violence against women. Those who think the needs of men with violent spouses are so unimportant that the risk of any genuine acknowledgement of female initiated violence will distract from the needs of female victims and should be surpressed.

R0bert

JamesH

‘…so basically what the feminists are saying is that DV by men is more serious than DV by women.’

I don't know about 'more serious' - certainly more dangerous. Feminists are simply citing what statisticians, police, social workers, the medical profession and anyone working in the DV field freely and openly state in their records and research data.

Richard J. Gelles – Mr Conflicts Tactics Scale himself – says the same thing regarding the many misinterpretations of his own (deeply flawed) research. I quote:

‘The statement that men and women hit one another in roughly equal numbers is true [sic], however, it cannot be made in a vacuum without the qualifiers that a) women are seriously injured at seven times the rate of men and b) that women are killed by partners at more than two times the rate of men.’ http://thesafetyzone.org/everyone/gelles.html

Oh … and the essay title containing the above quote is: ‘Not a Level Playing Field’.

R0bert

If by ‘supporters of the status quo of DV campaigns’, you are referring to campaigns like Australia Says No, then they are not worth the money spent on them. The Howard government used this campaign merely to distract from its appalling record of cuts to women’s DV protection funding (in fact, ALL women’s advocacy funding).

Conservative governments the world over are basically uninterested in DV/GV, except as a criminal issue. They rely on the traditional belief that men can be blamed and shamed into ‘respecting’ women. This maintains the paradigm that it’s men who call the shots on DV/GV. The empowering of women is not a part of any conservative political agenda.

The progressive viewpoint – the one advocated by feminists – is that only by addressing the two main underlying causes of GV/DV – the glamorisation of (particularly male) violence and women’s financial dependence on men – can any long-term solutions be found.

Because women are by far the greater victims of GV/DV, they are much more visible and vocal on the issue. If you wish to interpret this as ‘suppression’, then you are entirely missing the point.

<Feminists are simply citing what statisticians, police, social workers, the medical profession and anyone working in the DV field freely and openly state in their records and research data. >

Are they really?

Yet feminists have threatened Gelles, Straus, Erin Pizzey, Steinmentz and according to other reports I have read, for many DV researchers if they want money for their research it must be male on female violence, there is no money for researching female on male violence.

Is not feminist research deeply flawed when it only asks questions from the position of female=victim and male=perpetrator.

Firstly as I said the definition of DV is expanded from just physical violence, to include behaviours such as emotional manipulation etc, and as you have just shown SJF once the definition has been expanded, you then fall back onto the position of physical violence.

So if the strict definition of physical violence and a pattern of violence (not just one off incidinces) then the percentage of women esperiencing Dv falls rather dramatically.

Also drug and alcohol use and abuse are very big contributitors to violence whether it is on the street or in the home.

SJF:"women are by far the greater victims of GV/DV"

More "telling lies for women" from the sideline-runner. You go grrrl.

SJF:"‘The statement that men and women hit one another in roughly equal numbers is true [sic], however, it cannot be made in a vacuum without the qualifiers that a) women are seriously injured at seven times the rate of men and b) that women are killed by partners at more than two times the rate of men.’ http://thesafetyzone.org/everyone/gelles.html"

No one disputes that women are injured more frequently when they fight with men, just as children are injured more frequently when they fight with their mothers. What the sensible posters here grasped a long time ago is that the violence of women is often directly contributory to the violence of men. Claiming pure victime status for women, while maintaining full culpability for men is, therefore, not merely dishonest, but insulting to both genders and counterproductive if your aim is to reduce injuries to women. Of course, reducing injuries usually comes a poor second to ensuring on-going funding, doesn't it? After all, where would all those embittered, entitled "victims" get their wages if "telling lies for women" wasn't Government funded?

Sometimes we all have to modify our expectations of what we're entitled to do and that includes the 1/3 of girls who regard it as reasonable to be able to hit boys.

"Telling lies for women" the way you do doesn't add to the discussion or assist in arriving at an equitable and workable solution.

JamesH

'Is not feminist research deeply flawed when it only asks questions from the position of female=victim and male=perpetrator.'

This deceitful remark inadvertantly reveals the sense of male supremacy underlying all anti-feminist rhetoric.

So ... research on heterosexual violence against homsexuals is 'deeply flawed' because it doesn't give more priority to homosexual violence against heterosexuals. Ditto - research on White Australia's shabby treatment of Aboriginal people is deeply flawed because it doesn't give more priority to Aboriginal people's shabby treatment of white Australians. And research on adult violence against children is deeply flawed because it doesn't give more priority to children's violence against adults.

I suggest that the only feminist research that you would NOT consider 'deeply flawed' is the kind that puts men at the centre of every woman's universe.

Antiseptic

'"Telling lies for women" the way you do doesn't add to the discussion or assist in arriving at an equitable and workable solution.'

This says far more about you than it does about me or about the topic.

Antiseptic/JamesH

It's impossible to adequately respond to your posts to me. Not only are they too belligerent to rationally engage with, they contain far too much second-guessing and projected deceit - i.e. using deceitful arguments to illustrate the supposed deceit of an argument I never made in the first place.

I don't expect you to even remotely understand what I am talking about. I write this more for the sake of others reading it.

SJF - thank you for your posts and especially the last one.

I have been wondering whether responding is worth my time and effort.

I read MRA sites at length as well as all the credible information available to anyone who has an interest in this topic and in social justice. The fellows here are too lazy or too content in their prejudices and hatreds to do as much. I really don't think it's just a lack of intelligence.

They just again state the same malicious lies they started with that are intended to maintain and justify abuse supportive attitudes and beliefs.

I suggest that for now they address any further 'questions' (that they obviously don't want answered) to the WRC Blog:

http://whiteribbonday.wordpress.com/

<The progressive viewpoint – the one advocated by feminists – is that only by addressing the two main underlying causes of GV/DV – the glamorisation of (particularly male) violence and women’s financial dependence on men – can any long-term solutions be found.>

One of the main causes of DV towards women is that women enter into relationships and stay in relationships which are abusive. Generally men do not become violent towards a partner overnight. There is usually a long history of verbal abuse, threats, intimidation and other forms of aggression before it erupts into violence. Women enter into relationships with men who have a history of aggression and violence and wonder why they end up being beaten. Women are afraid to leave relationships because they are victims of peer pressure to stay in them. This is what they are truly victims of. Their fear of their peers and their fear of loneliness is greater than there fear of being beaten up.

It is easier to go on a witch hunt against all men than it is to admit your real fear and anger which is probably meant for your own mother. Women seem angry that domestic violence occurs as if they have some god-given right to peaceful relationships. No one has a right to any relationship (it is offered as a gift) nor do they have a right to dictate how their partner behaves in that relationship. They do however, have a right to leave a relationship whenever they feel like it. The fact that they are too afraid of the reaction from those who have emotional power over them is hardly men’s fault.

Phanto,

I believe that every human has a right to peaceable relationships. Your post just caps off the constant stream of lies put forth by other male posters here; yours is the 'blame the victim' facet of the same abuse supportive attitudes.

You say, "They do however, have a right to leave a relationship whenever they feel like it."

It's harder to leave when one is pregnant and/or got little children in tow. Especially if the woman on the run has no access to money.

Btw, your statement that women have a 'right' to leave a relationship (just as the men who are abused do, presumably) doesn't fit with the fact that women are at greatest risk of violence when they leave.

<Your post just caps off the constant stream of lies>
They are not lies they are opinions.

<It's harder to leave when one is pregnant and/or got little children in tow. Especially if the woman on the run has no access to money.>
Of course it is but it is not impossible.

<women are at greatest risk of violence when they leave>
Then why leave at all?

The problem with this discussion is that every situation is different and each relationship is different and the motivations for each individual in a relationship is different. Trying to make generalised opinions about all DV or all men or all women is not going to work. I may have in mind a woman without kids who has a highly paid professional job and you may have in mind a woman living in poverty in a patriarchal third world refugee camp.

To get behind the motivations as to why each individual stays or leaves an abusive relationship is very difficult. However, some generalisations may still be valid. Just because I said that one of the main causes why women stay is peer pressure it does not automatically follow that no woman will find it difficult to leave for the reasons you suggested.

There is no definitive answer to this problem but ignoring some of the answers is not helpful either.

Deceitful? SJF

I guess questionaries that ask women "When was the last time he hit you?"

Or men "When was the last time you hit her?"

aren't biased.

Very rarely men and women are asked the same questions.

As part of the DV screening for pregnant women, they are asked about DV, but the male partners are never asked if they have experienced DV.
Midwives report that male partners have asked if they are going to be asked the same questions.

Now SJf you wrote <of his own (deeply flawed) research. I quote>

So you can dish it out, but not take it.

Deceitful arguements?

< Publication of the "other side" of the violence study provides a sharp illustration of how social science is manipulated to fit a particular agenda.

"It happens all the time. People only tell one half of the story," says Eugen Lupri, a University of Calgary sociologist whose research shows similar patterns of violence against men.

"Feminists themselves use our studies, but they only publish what they like.>
http://www.franks.org/fr01060.htm

I rest my case!

SJF:"I don't expect you to even remotely understand what I am talking about"

Well, perhaps you could try making sense? I understand you have a long history of spouting gobbledegook, so a sudden transition to rationality isn't going to be easy. Why not ask for a grant? Call it "capacity building". Should be good for a decent lump of dosh.

Phanto

‘Women seem angry that domestic violence occurs as if they have some god-given right to peaceful relationships.’

What a priceless Freudian slip!

Could I have your permission to use this statement for a domestic violence poster? Or how about a TV ad with a script that goes something like this …

(Close-up image of a woman with two black eyes and a couple of missing teeth.)

(Whiny voiceover – female:) ‘I thought I had a god-given right to a peaceful relationship.’

(Booming voiceover – male:) ‘No … you don’t. Peaceful relationships for women? Australia says NO.’

(Blank screen. Caption appears:) ‘No woman was harmed during the making of this ad. This is a paid professional actress pretending to be a battered woman.’

Pynchme

'I have been wondering whether responding is worth my time and effort.'

I know that this is a rhetorical statement, but it's worth a response.

I've found over time - as do most of us - that the best you can do is to get to know who the genuine posters are, because every commentary thread throws up at least a couple of posts that offer some useful insight into an issue.

On the other hand, there are the serial vexacious posters. If a person seriously miscontrues what I say in a post, I give them the benefit of the doubt once or twice. If they continue to misconstrue what I say, then I know that it is deliberate. These posters are best ignored, except to treat as mosquitoes that you have to swot now and again.

And, I suppose, those vexacious mosquitoes will do a bit more buzzing here in reaction to this post. If so, then be aware I've asked Santa for a new fly swotter.

And on that note ... Merry Christmas to all the GENUINE posters here. (You know who you are.) Thanks for some great discussions.

SJF

Violence is one form of aggression. Sarcasm and belittling the contributions of other posters are other forms of aggression. Why do you feel the need to try and hurt someone just because they have a different opinion to you?

Perhaps if you understood your own aggression you may be able to contribute something positive to the debate. Most people here seem to be trying to help solve the problem of DV by first of all listening to different opinions about it.

It seems that you have a more personal agenda and I don't think these forums are the appropriate place for airing your bitterness.

Merry Xmas to all,

regardless of their intent.

XOXOXOXOXO

Tch Phanto - very norty of u to say that to SJF. I'll respond to bizarro comments after Christmas day.

For now I want to join with you in wishing all a safe and happy Christmas.

SJF is no more embittered than any run of the mill feminist, albeit better trained and with a more highly attuned sense of entitlement. There is also that undercurrent of arrogance evident in the way she swats in the direction of any potential source of insectile dissent.

Female cicadas carrying swatters for noise reduction? Instructive paradoxy, that.

Merry Xmas.

Well, my Xmas has been merry. I hope the same applies to all those here, especially the beleaguered and bewildered grrrls who want to be boyz.

Seeker: "SJF is no more embittered than any run of the mill feminist, albeit better trained and with a more highly attuned sense of entitlement..."

Show an example of SJF's sense of entitlement.

Antiseptic: "... especially the beleaguered and bewildered grrrls who want to be boyz."

What exactly indicates to you that female posters here want to be "boyz" ?

Pynchme:"What exactly indicates to you that female posters here want to be "boyz" ?"

Well, you're certainly not very happy being girls and you seem sure you know more about what makes a man tick than any of the blokes here. It was the only logical conclusion.

Antiseptic: "Well, you're certainly not very happy being girls..." <-what is the indication of that ?

Antiseptic: "...and you seem sure you know more about what makes a man tick than any of the blokes here." <- what evidence is there of that ?

Antiseptic apparently confuses women who aren't very happy at being punching bags with those who are "not very happy being girls". As for "what makes a man tick", I'm a bloke and I don't know what miserable men like Antiseptic tick.

A need to overcome some kind of deep inferiority complex, perhaps?

I've been trying to think of a good new years reso.

Then I read this story;

"Satish Narayan dies after his wife Rajini allegedly set his genitals alight"

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24848739-2,00.html

Kind of ads a new meaning to Sleeping with the Enemy.(excuse the pun)

Pynchme:"what is the indication of that ?"

The constant stream of "woe is me" from you and the sideline squatters is a pretty good starter. If you're really happy being a grrrl, why do we never hear anything positive from you about it? From the stuff you've published, women are nothing more than hapless victims of fate, entirely unable to do anything to help or take responsibility for themselves, while men are always in charge and in full control of all their faculties and their destiny. I know which of the genders I'd rather be in your dismal world and was paying you the compliment of assuming you to be equally rational. Silly of me, really.

Pynchme:"what evidence is there of that ?"

Actually, there's no evidence you know anything at all about what makes a bloke tick, but that doesn't stop you trying to tell those of us who do how to behave. On second thoughts, you're far better being a grrl - all the responsibility of being a bloke would be too much for you.

CJ Morgan:"apparently confuses women who aren't very happy at being punching bags with those who are "not very happy being girls"."

Oh dear. I do think you made the right decision in not procreating, I really do. The gene pool is already shallow enough.

Antiseptic: << I do think you made the right decision in not procreating, I really do >>

Antiseptic displays his usual perspicacity. Actually, I have three beautiful children and one delightful grandchild. I've even been married and divorced a couple of times, but I remain close friends with my ex-wives.

Somehow I've managed to do all that without becoming bitter, miserable and twisted like the male losers who inevitably dominate these discussions at OLO.

I wonder if Toddy Harper read these critiques?

http://hathor.instanthosting.com.au/~mhirc//files/access_economics.pdf

<“Statistics shows that for women between 16 and 44 years of age, domestic
violence is thought to be the major cause of death and invalidity, ahead of
cancer, road accidents and even war.”>

Notice "IS THOUGHT".

CJ thank you; I think you summed things up very astutely re: Antiseptic and co. It is my sincere prayer and hope that the men here are not typical of men in the wider population. You know I can quite imagine the arguments and complaints they put here being presented in due course by Taliban men. They share much the same sort of thinking.

SJF I liked your ad description very much. It's astonishing that a man can post that a woman is to be blamed for staying and putting up with violence; and also condemned for leaving - as if deserving of punishment by an abusive spouse. That a woman has no right to a peaceable relationship with someone who professes to love her - and not one other male here disputed that. Just sad.

These men posture as seekers of truth - no other men here call Antiseptic on his repeated lying (except you CJ); none of these people speak out against provocation and baiting by each of them; none acknowledge the lies bandied about by the he-men-hate-women adherents that I suspect incite many of the sad incidents that we're reading about - where male abusers feel completely justified in making good on their threats... but yet one jumps in to accuse SJF of aggression.

James I see that you at least seem to seek out some links and often present very interesting ones for consideration - thank you for that.

I note that there is a post about a woman who burned her spouse. Dreadful, awful crime. Sorry to hear it. However, was it to illustrate some particular point? Nobody doubts that some women are capable of great cruelty; and it's contemptible. Is there anything else that anyone expected to have said about it?

A couple of matters for consideration.

1. I think it was Robert who posted recently that women choose bad guys over good ones. It might pay to observe more closely and note the modus operandi of such men. In my observation, they appeal to the woman by showing her some sort of vulnerability as in, "If I was just loved enough by somebody I could be different... " Of course some women are stupid and fall for that; but I am sure they have their equivalents in the opposite sex whose ego is puffed up under the misconception that they are rescuing someone who poses as helpless.

2. The reason that notions and attempts to demonstrate parity between the sexes in DV perpetration and victimization defy logic can be attributed to four things.

One: If men perpetrate more violence than women in every other setting, it takes a tremendous leap in logic to believe that it would be any different in the home.
Two: If men generally have greater strength than most women; then they can use that strength to escape the scene of abuse.
Three: Men who leave are not systematically threatened, abused or killed by their disgruntled female spouses. Nor do female spouses seem to regularly kill pets and children or do other damage aimed at hurting the one who has left.
Four: The sheer number of injuries that present for treatment; and of course the female body count. If women were abusing as much and were as capable of damage then we could expect to see an equivalent number of similarly injured or deceased men.

3. In all of your arguments justifying abusive behaviour, just imagine that the one being abused is just a housemate (rather than a lover). Would you advise that a housemate put up with having to account for their whereabouts; hand over their income; do all the housework; accept a thumping at any given time ? Or would you advise them to leave and to obtain legal and police assistance if necessary.

Pynchme:"It is my sincere prayer and hope that the men here are not typical of men in the wider population. You know I can quite imagine the arguments and complaints they put here being presented in due course by Taliban men"

I imagine you do hope that my views are not widely shared, but I assure you they are very much the mainstream view. I also note your silly little insult. Gee, you really put me in my place, didn't you dear? Care to demovstrate your reasoning for drawing that conclusion? Thought not.

What is far more redolent of the Taliban is the insistence by you and other feminists that men can only exist as men on the terms set by women. This is a classic Taliban-style form of ideologically-based thinking. you and the rest of the "grrls who want to be boyz" simply can't accommodate a world in which your own ideology is not the sole arbiter of all things right and proper. Well, guess what, honey, most of us think your version of "some animals are more equal than others" is any better than the various other forms of the same thing. now off you toddle and have a baby or whatever it is you do with your time.

Pynchme:"a woman has no right to a peaceable relationship with someone who professes to love her"

And what of the man? As usual, there is no room for his "rights" in your world, merely his obligation to do what he is told by the grrrls, who naturally have no responsibility to go with the authority you claim for them.

Why are you so determined that women are incapable of being responsible for any of the ills that their decisions may lead them to? All of your utterances are bereft of any sense that women are capable of enough independence to be held accountable for anything at all. The poor helpless things are always mere toys of the brutal men in their lives, who are nonetheless, entirely accountable for their actions at all times.

Pathetic.

JamesH, I just read that link. Isn't it interesting that an organisation like Access Economics is prepared to regurgitate misinformation and then unwilling to disavow their own report when called on their "error"? the same thing was seen recently with the White Ribbon report that this thread stems from. We've still not seen anything from the "grrls" here, or their supporters in the shallow end of the gene pool, to condemn the 1/3 of girls who think it's acdceptable to hit boys, or anything to acknowledge that such girls are likely to become "victims" of domestic violence if they carry such attitudes into adulthood and hit men.

As usual, in the world of these dimwits, women are helpless and hapless and men are entirely the architects of their own destiny, always in full control of their actions and emotions. No wonder the grrrls want to be boyz.

No woman has a right to a peaceful relationship nor does any man. No one has a right to any relationship at all. A relationship is a gift and not a right. One person offers the gift of relationship to another and vice versa. A loving relationship is a beautiful thing and one of life’s great joys but it is not a right. You cannot have the right to force another another person into relationship with you or to stay in relationship with you. This would impinge on everyone’s right to enter and leave relationships as they wish.

If you have no right to the fundamental relationship then you have even less right to dictate how your partner behaves. You cannot control another person’s behaviour – you can only control your own. If you partner behaves in a way that you do not like then you should react appropriately by controlling your own behaviour which is your right and freedom. You cannot blame anyone but yourself if you do not react appropriately to behaviour that you do not like. If your partner behaves aggressively then you should react appropriately by withdrawing to a safe place. That is what our fear tells us to do.

Many people do not act appropriately when a partner acts aggressively because they are overcome by a seemingly greater fear which is the fear of the responses of their peers who emotionally blackmail them into remaining in abusive relationships.

It is not natural to feel anger when a relationship turns sour because we only feel anger when our rights are being denied. It is natural to feel to fear and to want to withdraw from the source of danger which is an aggressive partner

Cont.

When the topic of domestic violence is raised many women and exhibit anger as if their rights were being denied. In my opinion the anger belongs to the relationship with their peers whom they perceive to be denying them their rights to enter and leave relationships on their own terms. The inability to resolve that anger often leads to aggressive outbursts towards innocent bystanders such as members of this forum who are simply expressing opinions on the subject.

Unless women resolve that anger they will remain in abusive relationships and continue to become bitter and aggressive towards outsiders. Discussions about domestic violence will go round in circles because we are not all talking about the same issue.

Much of what I have said can also pertain to some men in relationships but I do not think there is anywhere near the same level of emotional blackmail to remain in relationships as there is for women.

There is only one good reason to remain in a relationship and that is because you love your partner and they love you. Forcing them to remain in a relationship because it is your ‘right’ or forcing them to behave peacefully because it is your ‘right’ will never produce a loving relationship. When someone ‘loves’ because they have to then it is not love at all and who would want to be in that type of relationship?

Pynchme,

I have known men who are extremely violent towards other men, but are pussy cats when women are involved, in other words they tolerant for example a woman calling them names, where if a bloke said that to them, they would lash out.

I have seen them pull other blokes in line if they felt these blokes were being disrepectful towards a woman.

Unfortunately like a report in todays paper about DV being more prevelant after news years eve, strongly suggests that alcohol pays a big part in violence.

One thing I do know is that males experience a high level of acquired brain injury which can change personality. To my knowledge there has been no research into the link between acquired brain injury and violence. One case I do know about the male ended up killing his step father.

Pynchme, I've stayed out of this thread for some time as it seems for the most part to have done the usual drop into trading insults but I'd like to take up some of the points in your post.

1/ Not having been party to a the bad boy thing from either side I can't comment with any authority but my impression is that the appeal of bad boys goes a lot further than claims of man wanting to change. I think the idea of adventure and excitement is part of it. The women I've heard talk about it are not talking about reforming bad boy's, they are talking about how sexy they find the tough rebel image.
2.1/ The traditional male role in the home is different to that outside. Outside the male is supposed to be competing to get the most for his family. In the the home he is supposed to be the protector and provider. It's not a "tremendous leap in logic" rather taking into consideration of the impact of traditional roles and that those roles still impact on us.
2.2/ I doubt that physical strength has much to do with the actual leaving. The strength might help protect against physical reprisal (if it can be used without being treated as the abuser). It does not protect against other forms of reprisal nor against socialisation about "deserting" a partner.
2.3/ Men who leave are often threatened. They are threatened with loss of access to children, they are threatened with loss of financial security. They are sometimes threatened with accusations of being an abuser. Those threats are followed through with in too many cases.

TBC
R0bert

Part 2

2.4/ I don't think any of the men here are claiming that women physically injure male partners at the same rate as the reverse. They lack the strength to do serious harm as easily. That does not mean that they don't hit as often, it does not mean they don't initiate violence. You might consider the impact of female emotional violence against males and the body count of deceased men who take their own lives when discussing the numbers of deceased. It's not clear cut and I don't think that the difference in female suicide rates is all about ineffective methods.
4/ I'm in agreement with leaving but having had an abusive partner I'm also aware that spousal relationships are not the same as being a housemate. Housemates have rarely made a long term committment which they feel bound to abide by even if the other party is breaching it. Housemates who leave don't generally risk having to hand over almost everything they value to the other party.

I think the idea of rights has different meanings to different people and that may be part of the different reactions to the comment about rights. I don't see that society can guarantee anybody a relationship of any kind. We can encourage behaviours and attitudes which support respectful and loving relationships. We can provide legal support to allow people to exit a damaging relationship. We can prosecute offenders. We can't though enforce what type of relationships people will find themselves in.

R0bert

Hmmm, I think I agree with phanto really. What he says is controversial and un-PC, and deliberately and unfairly misrepresented by pynchme, but I cant fault his logic.

pynchme,

'they appeal to the woman by showing her some sort of vulnerability as in, "If I was just loved enough by somebody I could be different... "'

That is the no.1 most popular theme of most soapies consumed in the masses by women. I actually find it offensive to men; Women the devine, selfless loving beings saving the brutish males from their destructive selves by the power of female love. (Just watch 'Home and Away')

I've read a few of these types of topics and I can identify a few consistant themes...

1. The male posters want some recognition that women should have some responsibility assigned for their behaviour in domestic disputes that are violent. This seems as a response to the DV campaigns depicting low level violence and controlling behaviour by men (only men) as a problem.

2. Women react as if said male posters are 'silencing' or 'hiding' male domestic violence or asserting equal rates of high level violence exist.

The debates would be simpler if they either talked about high level violence (perpertrated more often by males), or domestic violence as a whole, which has been shown to be pretty gender-equal I think.

As James said,

'Firstly as I said the definition of DV is expanded from just physical violence, to include behaviours such as emotional manipulation etc, and as you have just shown SJF once the definition has been expanded, you then fall back onto the position of physical violence.'

This happens far too often.

BTW: I see a lot of the anguish in these debates indicative of how men and women relate. A lot of female posters are offended at the lack of empathy, validation, or emotional engagement by the male posters about DV against women and the personal experiences related by female posters. Common gripes about male calousness and bullying abound. The silence on the male posters part in response to personal accounts and emotive arguments is taken as a lack of empathy (I think wrongly).

Some male posters have related their experiences and received validation and empathy from the female posters. The reverse rarely happens.

BUT, the male posters rarely if ever show any empathy or bother to 'validate' each others personal experiences either. In fact, even after 'oh you poor thing, that really must have been horrible' from the female posters as a response to a male poster's personal experience, there is little if any acknowledgement from the male posters of the female validation. Perhaps because it's not wanted or sought? I suspect it is expected if not sought from the female posters.

It seems the male posters here just relate to people in a different way to the female posters. Hardly surprising. Both 'sides' should take this into account, and neither side is 'wrong' in their way of communicating. Male posters could be more sensitive, female posters could be less sensitive.

So it's surprising it's the female posters complaining of bullying and ganging up when the males really debate more independently than the female posters, who empathise with each others personal accounts, more directly compliment and encourage each others points, and egg each other on with 'atta girl', 'thankyou for your posts' etc.

Houellebecq, welcome.

Nice to see another view point, and I think you articulate some very important points.

Happy New Year!

Houellebecq:"silence on the male posters part in response to personal accounts and emotive arguments is taken as a lack of empathy (I think wrongly)."

So do I. However, I just take it as read that people understand that I'm empathic, rather than simply trotting out the boilerplate. I'm much more interested in discussing something about the subject than getting off into meta-discussions about feelings, unless it's very germane.

I think you're right about the gender difference in such interactions and the question that then need to be asked is whether that is genetic/ hormonal and hence largely immutable or whether it is a social construct. The grrrls believe the latter; I'm not so sure. It is certainly partially socially constructed, but there is a great deal of predisposition involved as well. No matter how hard some try to socially engineer SNAGS, they can only skew the curve a little, I suspect. Nature will out, as my Mum used to say when someone she didn't like did something she disapproved of

I would say in general that it is nearly always a case of social construction but mainly for the women. If you have been a victim of domestic violence you do not need empathy or validation of your experience. If someone has broken your nose you will certainly know about it! Everyone around you will naturally be empathetic because they know that a broken nose is very painful. You should not need confirmation of these things from others.

When people relate their experience it is often because they are looking for sympathy – they want people to validate how they have dealt with or interpreted that experience because they are not at peace in themselves with the way they have handled it. I don’t think men are socialized to be not empathetic it is just that in most cases it is not necessary. Men are socialized to ignore or suppress their own emotional responses to their own experiences which is a different thing and this suppression can often lead to domestic violence.

I think when the issue of DV comes up women are often looking for sympathy because they are socialized to do so. Instead of sitting down and trying to solve the problem of how to react to a partner who is violent they often seek validation of their decision to stay in the relationship. They will seek out other women who have responded in the same way as them. They will not seek out women who have left the relationship. That is why you get the ‘clubbing together’ effect where there is a loyalty to each other but not necessarily a loyalty to the truth. When they claim there is no empathy they usually mean no sympathetic support for their own denial.

cont.

If you watch the way women socialize you can observe that a great deal of their communication is about sympathizing with each other and supporting each other’s poor responses to common experiences especially in relationships with partners. Women are ‘taught’ to support each other even when they are doing great damage to themselves. Few have the courage to stand apart from this insidious socialization and critically examine their own experience and human nature.

Men deny their own pain so they do not go looking for validation, empathy or sympathy. They simply refuse to acknowledge they are hurting at all. Women admit to pain but often the way they react to it is not logical or in their own best interests and so they go looking for others who will affirm their response as valid. For example they will seek validation of their choice to stay in an abusive relationship because their real fear is of loneliness or of being partner-less.

On public forums such as this I think the aim should be to contribute opinions that help to bring about a solution to the social problem of domestic violence. If people come here looking for sympathy then they have come for the wrong reason and they will feel disappointed. They can become aggressive because their need is not being met and such aggression is usually a sign that they are here for the wrong reasons. The issue of DV is too important to be hijacked for personal needs.