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