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).