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