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