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!