So here we go again, all 'judge and jury'.

What ever happened to 'inocent until proven guilty'?

I do agree with one poster though, why get involved with a sports star?

We all know the chances of group sex with the so called 'groupies' is high. Is this the type of role model these girls want as a father for their child.

Fame and the lure of money often wins over common sence.

Well ,Pynchme- you said what I wanted to say ! I wish to suggest -that because men ,as a whole,simply do not live the experience of being female- in ANY situation-or any age- ; that some tend to get upset and take some realities, personally. Just as a female cannot fully comprehend the experience of being male.Either that- or- some of those who react so strongly- are so inured to the entitlement and abuse in our societies- that they are complicit in this social scourge of violence.
Even nuns get raped- abused. One cannot argue that their clothing or lifestyle means they "asked for it".A fine opinion piece, that only speaks of reality and bashes no person- but rather the acts of violence that are omnipresent.

Suze,

"women in Australian society are, at best, seen as fodder for Sam Newman’s jokes, and generally occupy very lowly social positions as men’s cheergirls, dishwashers, sexual servicers, and paper filers."

Seems to me to be a fairly blanket condemnation of male Australia.

And I thought that by using phrases such as "reprehensible" and "tidal wave of disgust", I was pretty unequivocally denouncing violence against women.

CJ,

'Do you really think that OLO's resident misogynist men, having been whipped into a lather by yet another feminist critique of Rugby League thuggery towards women, are going to go home and give the missus a good slapping?

Even I give them more credit than that.'

That surprises me!

James,

'Caroline if you are a psychologist, social worker or sociologist, you have just breach the code of ethics for any of these organisations.'

WTF. Get your hand off it.

Suze,

'For goodness sakes get over yourselves and show a bit of backbone by denouncing violence against anyone- male or female.'

I hate this 'denounce' crap. I don't think Muslims should have to 'denounce' terrorism, and I don't think all men (or women) have to 'denounce' violence. In fact, I 'denounce' you.

pynchme,

'If you aren't a man who abuses women and you disagree with violence against women then you wouldn't find this article threatening or insulting'

I find it insulting to my intelligence. It's not an 'article', it's a rant. Anyway, nice use of the whole 'if you've got nothing to hide' type argument.

Also, you can 'assume' she's standing by her man, and the anti-feminists can 'assume' the PR spin put out recently is factual. If what they assume makes them pro-violence or anti-female, then what you assume makes you anti-male and pro lynching someone who was trying to help a troubled partner. You have to be careful with assumptions.

How can an accused person get a fair hearing in court when they have already been pilloried by social commentators and found guilty by a kangaroo court of the media? On OLO a respondent has linked the Inglis case to the rape of nuns(?!) while another, also certain of his guilt, rages that so far he has not suffered any loss at all even though he has been prejudged, ridiculed and humiliated in the media and has been stood down from his work. No mention of the collateral damage that is being caused to others either.

Surely the presumption of innocence is an important enough legal principle to be defended and that should be regardless of the person involved.

Phil Gould has quite reasonably asked for the media to act with more restraint and it is time that the Law Society also came forward to defend the rights of all accused persons against trial by the media. Reaffirming the rights of the accused and victims and giving both a fair go until they have had their day in court ensures that trials are fair and are seen to be fair.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/lhqnews/lets-hear-what-inglis-says-before-we-rush-in-to-judge/2009/08/15/1249756481140.html

‘the widely believed fallacy that women are in an equal social position to men, so can up and leave them without any fear of social ostracism, loss of financial status, condemnation from families for wasting an opportunity with a “good guy”, or any personal feelings of failure for having lost another chance at happiness.’

Any woman or any man that remains in, or even begins a relationship for any of these reasons has no one else to blame but themselves. Whilst you can sympathise with their predicament you cannot absolve them of responsibility for their choices. None of those things are worthy values for an independent, mature adult. If violence toward women is to stop then it is the victims who need to examine why they remain in relationships. A woman does not all of a sudden wake up and realise she is living with a violent man. Violence is an extreme form of aggression – it follows a pattern of behaviour that manifests itself long before anyone gets hit. It is the failure of women to respond to aggression of any type that is the real problem. They need to take action as soon as any form of aggression manifests itself. Too often all the warning signs are ignored usually to protect the misguided values that the author has listed.

The man is responsible for his violence and there is no escaping that but the woman is responsible for her values and priorities and there is no escaping that either.

As to the claim that women are in danger even if they leave a relationship this may be true. They are not the only ones who live in fear of violence. We all live in fear of personal injury every time we get out of bed each day. There are laws and police to protect us from those things and we have to trust them. Ultimately, we cannot live our lives in fear. Who would live in a relationship where they will probably be injured rather than leave and risk the possibility that they may be injured?