TPP, "Neglect beats Abuse hands down in the permanent damage game. And it is the hardest to prove in court."

Well said!

Neglect provides the conditions under which abuse is likely to occur too.

It is a pity that politics drives the agenda and the sex abuse tail swings the neglect dog.

Regrettably, some 'advocates' who influence government policy have their own secondary agenda to serve.

It would appear that although this is called on-line opinion, some opinions are more welcome than others. My non pc opinion on homosexuality has so far been held in check. My opinions on religion here have also been held in check, I don’t believe either is relevant to what Warwick has written here. What does it matter if some have joined up just to comment, or others commenting have been members here for years.

Some relevant facts are that the suicide rate in Australia is higher than the national road toll, and that men suicide at 5 times the rate women do. Here in NSW we have the RTA carrying out a massive anti male speeding campaign (no one thinks big of you) which doesn’t get the message across to female drivers, yet we have no, NO state or federal suicide prevention programs, no advertising the facts about suicide, and sweet FA funding on this taboo subject.

Protagoras “Official statistics are not commonly ‘rigged’” explain please then the difference in the ABS stats for the 1999 “women’s safety survey” and the 2005 “personal safety survey”! The former claimed 1 in 4 (25%) women suffer some form of violence during their lifetime, the later shows less than 4% of the female population? Could it have anything to do with the former actually having data collected by the Office for Women?

For the past several years we have had this Federal Campaign, fully paid for by taxpayer, “to violence against women, Australia says no” when the 2005 PSS shows 7% of the male population suffer from violence yet less than 4% of the female population do. All violence should be deplored (especially at a government level).

My personal opinion, in order to prevent children being harmed we have to be honest with ourselves about who is doing the harm, as with the AIC report, the WA DCP data etc. Oliver Garcia, James Topham, Darcy Freeman, Dean Shillingsworth, all killed by someone supposed to be protecting them, NO court is to blame, no piece of legislation holds the responsibility, rare senseless tragedies

Ross M, I too am very sad about all the people that are so in despair that they feel the only way out is to commit suicide.

You suggest there should be funding for this national tragedy. What would the funding be used for? Advertising campaign?

No- the main reasons for these suicides are often very deep-seated and personal. These people need the professional help that mental health workers can give them, but our current mental health system is given very little funding, especially in rural areas where many suicides occur.
We need to lobby our MPs hard for more funding.

Yes, there are more men that commit suicide, but I feel that if we address family violence, sexual abuse and neglect of children- both boys and girls- it would go a long way towards preventing most of these suicidal feelings in the first place.

Instead of this feud between men and women, blaming each other for all the woes of the world, shouldn't we all be in this together to try to fix the problems in families today?

Suzwonline:"Yes, there are more men that commit suicide, but I feel that if we address family violence, sexual abuse and neglect of children- both boys and girls- it would go a long way towards preventing most of these suicidal feelings in the first place."

That is the tack that has failed. Trying to fix male problems with a female-centric approach is doomed to failure. Each of the matters you have mentioned has a long history of Government-sponsored propaganda blaming men and never mentioning the role women play, as RossM said.

I do agree that there needs to be an end to the constant vilification of men. I was at my son's school office yesterday, which is staffed exclusively by women, from the Principal on down. It's in an affluent area, where I suspect that the prevalence of DV is quite low, yet in the foyer of the Admin block there are no less than 3 different posters and several stickers about "violence against women", all of which show a man and a battered woman. There are at least another half a dozen stickers saying "girls can do anything", and several advertising "Crimestoppers" featuring a male breaking violently into a window with the immortal authoritarian tag-line "no one need ever know your name". There isn't a single positive statement about boys and men to be seen.

What impression do you reckon a boy might get if he's sent to the Principal's office?

The Beyond Blue experiment has been a massive failure, with research funding spent principally on issues to do with female depression, almost ignoring male depression and suicide by comparison. This was discussed some time ago on OLO.

Much male depression and suicide occurs in the context of family breakdown. I suffered a very bad reactive depression myself, not because of the ex, but because of the wall of antipathy that is erected by the State around separated men. This is not theoretical, it happens and very often the man kills himself.

What I suggest is needed most is some positivity around the role of men in our society.

Cornflower, I too struggled to find a positive comment about fathers, not just from politicians, but from the media and others. For example, my kids and I went to the Broncos game on Sunday night and all over the field were big Telstra ads saying "Call Mum too", while never even mentioning Dad. In the Courier Mail, which carried a large front page Mother's Day special, there wasn't a mention of "Happy Father's Day", but there was a press release about why women choose not to become mothers. Ditto in the Fairfax Press - an opinion piece by Charles Waterstreet about his Dad last week was about it.

It's not surprising, of course. The media today is dominated by feminist women, most of whom are very happy to regurgitate the feminist claptrap they were stuffed full of in their gender studies classes. They understand that "the patriarchy must be opposed", they feel deeplythat "all men are potential rapists", they know in their bones that "solidarity with the sisterhood" must be maintained, so Dads can't be discussed except as wife-bashers and child molesters. Even if a good story comes along, they'll try to find a negative example to mention along with it.

There is going to be a reckoning.

The Pied Piper- "What a complete load of stinky Andrew. Like a kid being hit by their father prefers that to their mother saying nasty things to them. You really want to know the worst and most soul destroying type of abuse? Neglect beats Abuse hands down in the permanent damage game. And it is the hardest to prove in court."

You're reading between the lines here and finding a meaning that simply wasn't there in my statement. I didn't say that physical abuse was worse than psychological abuse, only that it was more obvious to police and the courts. On that we apparently agree. Nor did I make any statement implying that women do not hit their partners as another poster assumed. Women certainly do hit their partners- however, men tend to be physically more powerful than women so their violence tends to result in more obvious physical tells.

"According the American College of Pediatricians who cite several studies violence among homosexual couples is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples.[2] In addition, the American College of Pediatricians states the following: "Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years."[2]..."

Firstly, Conservapedia, that you take this quote from, isn't exactly an impartial source. It wears its bias on its sleeve.

Secondly- both these statements are comparing ALL homosexual couples, whether they be just dating, or are defacto, or (if they were allowed to) would be married, with only those heterosexual couples that are married. If they'd compared dissolusion and violence rates between same sex couples who were legally married and heterosexual couples who were legally married, the results might be meaningful, but they didn't so they're not. It has generally been found that there are higher rates of violence and dissolusion among heterosexual defactos compared to those who are married.