I am pleased to see this article highlighting the fact that men are also victims of family violence from their female partners.
Same sex couples also can become violent relationships.

Violence is violence and particularly violence against a supposed loved one can never be acceptable.

I wish you well in raising the awareness of this issue. I am a woman, a grandmother in a mariage where my husband and I are yet to have our first arguement, but I was a child witness to my stepmother's shocking abuse towards my father, my siblings and myself. My husband had seen his father beat up on his mother. So we have worked hard to ensure that we negotiate differences.

We raised our kids to be respectful etc, yet our son was in a relationship with a violent woman who used to taunt him that he 'wasn't game enough to hit her back'. She gets frustrated when he tells her 'that will never happen'.
He is very aware that violence is not the answer and although a very strong and blokey Murri man, but that did not seem to stop his ex from hitting, scratching and throwing things at him.

I know of another man who took his own life to escape the ongoing violence from his 'beloved wife'. He was a good warm caring man, who was not game to share his secret with anyone. (although it was obvious to some of his close friends)

It is madness to continue to ignore or pretend that women and children are the only ones who can be victims of violence from their family members.

We need to stop violence within the family and support those who suffer from it, regardless of gender

My Experience working with an agency dealing with alcohol abuse is that there is a strong correlation between alcohol and violence, and that there are as many violent female alcoholics as there are violent male alcoholics. It seems that there are as many men subjected domestic violence as there are women.

There is a weird statistic associated with alcohol and abuse. Nine out of ten women with alcoholic/abusive partners stay in the relationship. Nine out of ten men with alcoholic/abusive partners leave. For men there is no way to go except out.

The problem for male victims of domestic violence is that there is absolutely no support.
If a male victim tries to talk about it they are laughed at. What happens if a big male trucky tells his work mates that his with beat him up last night? It happens, and it happens often.

There is no support from any agencies, no emergency support, nothing.
If he tries to talk about it he is laughed at.
If he fights back he is a wife beater.
If he leaves he goes before the family court system, loses his children and gets stripped of his assets.
And he is the lowest of the low for walking out on his wife and family.

No fault divorce? A joke. If a judge just once asked a man why he left and the judge heard 'Because my wife gets drunk and beats me up' we might get somewhere. With nine out of ten women staying and nine out of ten men leaving it would seem that men subjected to domestic violence is a major contributor to the divorce rate.

So what can be done? Nothing can be done until male victims of domestic violence break the code of silence surrounding the subject. The choice for male victims of domestic violence is to speak up and be laughed at and be treated like freaks, or suffer in silence. The urban myth that men are always the perpetrators of domestic violence and women the victims has got to change or we go nowhere

Wouldn't violence come from a mismatch in the relationship to begin with. I have never seen it between man and woman. I should imagine it is caused by differences in personalities.
During the vietnam days there was always fights going on between the members of a same task forces. We were always told it was caused by personality clashes.

My 19 year old son Joshua hooked up with 17 year old Jessica 8 weeks ago. She moved in within 2 days. He is not allowed to see, call or text friends.

Last Thursday she claimed to be pregnant – 2 days after ovulation – if indeed she was having the period she claimed on 28th October. He cant understand how she managed it.

Within an hour of meeting her we had tagged her as a user and abuser due to her behaviour, her rubbishing him and striking him in front of us and his clear fear of her.

We found out also on Thursday she: Would not allow him to sleep past 10am – after night shift. She permits an allowance for 1/2 tank petrol and food and takes the remainder of his wages, She beats him regularly and also his dog. She tells him everything wrong in her life is his fault. Demands expensive presents rather than paying debts then claims the presents are not good enough. She breaks furniture and household items in her rages and destroys the jewellery her buys her. She tells him he’s useless, worthless, f’n stupid. He states “Mum, I'm trying so hard, I just cant make her happy – and I am miserable”

She beat him with the broom, gouged him and kneed him in his chest deformity causing excruciating pain. He flexed his knees knocking her stomach as he did so then ran from the house, returned to get his beaten dog. She called the police.

Yesterday, she met him to “talk”. By 8pm he: Is going back to her, Can’t talk to us,Wants and planned for this child, States his family doesn’t care about him,Demands we support her. He has no concept of our fears for him but states that people change, she has apologised and he states - “things just might be OK from here on in. – she understands now” I just got the results of the blood tests - Pregnancy Confirmed.

He's afraid to defend himself, walk away, breathe without permission. He WILL NOT listen! Now what?

Greg Andresen has alerted us to a very grave problem that no one wants to admit to or address least of all men. I am against all sorts of Family violence whether by male or female but as Bettina Arndt said "no gender has a monopoly on vice". As a very young child I watched my auntie in Scotland throw cutlery at my uncle. Thankfully he ducked and escaped injury my own father was not so lucky at times. I never saw my dad hit my mum but I saw my mum hit my dad at least once. So hard once she drew blood with her fingernails. Sadly I also know someone else on the other side of the family but more distantly related who put his wife in hospital.

The sad fact of the matter that reputable studies show that family violence is approximately 50/50. My experience working with both men and women over many decades in non profit work is that these studies are telling the truth. If we are to solve the problem of domestic violence in families we must get to the root causes. Generally you will find that people who engage in domestic violence are affected by drugs ,alcohol and pornography.

To begin to solve the problem of domestic violence we must accept the facts and not accept anti male ideology mixed with urban myth. We must also deal with the underlying root causes of domestic violence. The fact that our civilisation is enamoured with ultra violence in both movies, video games and on the internet must also be taken into account. The popularity of the Saw movie franchise is deeply disturbing.

Domestic violence is not just a male problem but a problem that faces both men and women. Thank you Greg Andresen for exposing us to the truth because only the truth will set us free. Family violence is wrong whether carried out by either men or women. We must do all we can to eradicate this problem. Demonising men is not the answer

Lets explode some myths.

1, In my experience many men, have been talking about it, including myself, for decades. Only a few months ago, one of the femanazi's suggested i was making it up, when i disclosed that all 3 of my relationships had involved DV by her, on myself and children. The radical, extremist, red, green, loony, left, lesbian, femanazi, paedophiles have infiltrated all areas of bureaucracy, politics & the mass media from where, they have been actively covering female violence up.

2, it is in fact natural for women to be more violent than men. I can assure you i did not enjoy watching my beautiful (kindergarten aged) daughter inflicting extensive DV on her older brother. Children at birth are usually intelligent, observant & soak up everything around them. She was simply mimicking the behaviour of her mother towards me. My son who was also neglected & abused by the stupid, fat, ignorant, lazy, thing that dares to call itself their mother, while i was at work, was also bullied every day at school, as a direct result.

3, Women who are violent, sociophsycopaths always take out a fake DVO on their victims. They are the perfect weapon of control & domination, they are in fact the severest form of DV any perpetrator can inflict on their victim. In other words 90% of all DVO's are the wrong way around.

4, Based on every man i have discussed relationships with, 90% of them were being abused by their female partners & had never responded with unequal force, usually less force.

5, Through men's groups i have come across many cases like those quoted in the article, where hard evidence & credible, independent witnesses were offered to corrupt social workers, police, etc, who refused to investigate or prosecute the female offenders. Women will never achieve equality with men until there are more of them in jail.

“Attacking his self-worth through various forms of criticism, manipulation and intimidation are forms of emotional and verbal violence that we need to learn about as a society and say ‘Enough!’””

If this is the case, then domestic violence on males must be 100%.

I can’t remember ever hearing one single positive comment or word said about the male gender from a feminist, and rarely have I heard such from any woman.

The number one area of concern is the education system. I have never once heard any teacher in a school or any lecturer in a university ever say one single positive word regards boy students or about men, and this trains girls to believe it is totally acceptable to carry out insults, denigration and maligning of males, just like their teachers.

The devaluing of males eventually leads women to believing it is totally acceptable to continuously nag and ridicule their husbands, eventually leading to domestic violence, with numerous studies now showing about 70% of domestic violence is initiated by the woman.

Women initiate the majority of domestic violence, men cause most injuries.

Being seen as blokes who get beaten-up by women is a disaster for the men's movement. I know that attitudes about manliness need to change, but lets not straw too far from community expectations. Many feminists have tried to be too far "ahead" of the rest of society and have only damaged their own cause. Instead, lets aim to challenge the assumption that she is probably the victim and he is the villan. We could also limit the free kicks that women get from the justice system, mainly the family court.

Daviy: where did you get the statistic from?

Excellent piece, Greg, and excellent website too. The page debunking the misinformation that is perpetuted by so many of our government organisations, not to mention the media and even Amnesty. The UN would be another fruitful ground for such misleading propaganda.

You might also like to examine which "new figures" the WRD release in the Courier-Mail was referring to, that "reveal" "MORE than half of Australian women will face some form of sexual or physical violence in their lifetime.

And almost 100,000 women a year experience sexual assault"

Benk, I take your point, but the constant misinformation and taxpayer-funded propaganda campaigns are going directly to the heart of the issue. Ths Chief Justice of the Family Court, Diana Bryant has recently called for a change to the Family Law so that if allegations of violence are made in the context of a Family Law matter, they must be investigated. She makes the point that 50% of Family Law matters involve claims of violence, yet those claims rarely get examined or even become part of the final orders sought.

She's concerned they might be porkies.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/family-court-appeal-on-violence/story-e6frg97x-1225803970787

The other point that should be made is that neither men nor women suffer violence at anywhere near the rate trumpeted hysterically by the various propagandists and the vast majority of "violence" as it is currently defined is neither serious nor unilateral, nor does it exist in isolation. Examining the common factors is a good place to start looking at how to intervene usefully.

Even grasping a woman to restrain her from hitting you may leave bruises and *bingo* anonther violent man can be recorded. If no physical evidence can be found, he "intimidated" you. The plight of a few can be abused by the many to their own advantage.

What a pleasure (if that is the word) to see so many people willing to look at an issue that is usually taboo. 'Women instigate the violence, men cause most injuries'. Whilst this is true of the injuries I don't think it is right to label women the instigators. To move forward on this issue we need to de-sex domestic violence. There are perpetrators and there are victims.

The sex of either does not matter. The labelling of men as the perpetrators in DV is the most blatant case of sexual discrimination I can think of. Why should there be so much support for women and none for men? End the discrimination and provide the same support for all victims, and the same programs for all perpetrators. Please don't make it 'Them and Us'.

Benk. The statistic came from the working models developed by the Alcohol and Drug Institute I worked with for some years. The working model also had a very strong correlation between alcohol and violence. In 50% of Australian marriages alcohol is a factor. Where alcohol is a factor violence also occurs in 50% of the cases. 50% of the time the man is the perpetrator and 50% it is the woman. This where the figure that one in 8 women are subject to DV come from (2/2=4 4/2 =8). But the 1 in 8 men who are also subjected to DV are ignored.

There are some very interesting studies that have been done on alcohol and addiction that do not make it into the general arena. Unfortunately when I ceased to work in the area I did not retain the references. I had reach the overlaod stage and passed my 'use-by' date in the area. Please do the research and you will find some surprising results.

What Greg Andresen has said in this article is not unknown. It can be backed up by any number of sources. What I find so good about the article is that at last someone is pushing to get the issue out into the public arena.

Vanna

"I can’t remember ever hearing one single positive comment or word said about the male gender from a feminist, and rarely have I heard such from any woman"

I am a feminist, I find the White Ribbon day being embraced by the type that often indulge in patronising style sexism. I also see adult women subjected to male violence within marriage not only remain in the relationship out of choice but CHOOSE to have children which really is straight down the line child abuse. Women fight for the right to abortion due to the principle they should alone have control of their bodies..so then they should control what happens to it. No excuse. There can be some valid debate for men and women being trapped emotionally in negative relationships but not to have children in heavily conflicted homes.

About saying a nice word about men. The only unconditional love I have ever experienced was from a male. My hero, a legend. His name was Dad.

There is no doubt that all victims of abuse should be supported both symbolically and practically.

Like many forms of abuse (Forgotten Australians, rape victims, child abuse etc) it is not until people start talking about the abuse that it is raised in the public's psyche and then conscience.

It would be sad if we could not support both male and female victims and it is great to see organisations that have opened up their doors to male victims for advice and support.

Greg, this is a great piece and the new website 'oneinthree' would have to be the best thing we have seen in a long time.
It is about time we started to see some truth in this debate and someone actually starting to publicly fight the lies that come from the radical feminists in our society and our govt.

There are so many statistics out there that prove women are as violent as men are, but also that mothers abuse their own natural children up to 3 times more than the natural fathers do. Yet we hear nothing of this lie in the media either.

I wish there were more men and women standing up to fight these lies. One reason they aren't, is because the media refuses to report the truth. Your website will go a long way to helping this.

It's also time we start educating girls and women in Australia that it is not okay to abuse men and boys. Australian females have a distinctly arrogant attitude toward men and most seem to agree in part or in whole, with the radical feminist mantra. Even if they don't adopt this code to live by, they still think it is funny to see men demeaned or vilified in the media and they will always trust another woman over a man as an automatic response, because they have been taught that all men are abusers and paedophiles, whereas women are morally upright humans, who live their lives as victims.
These lies must be put right, before our society is totally destroyed.

Now we have these lunatics in Victoria forcing this vile feminism on vulnerable children in primary schools.
When will this evil be stopped.

Paw

I would have thought Sykes, Suzie et al would have been posting by now.

David Penberthy wrote;

"THERE is an angry core of Australian men who use cyberspace as the latest forum to unload on how women have done them wrong "
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/white-ribbon-day-in-forums-sight/story-e6frfhqf-1225803968252

It would appear he has as much sympathy as Hitler did for the jews.

Hmmm, women are as violent as men, huh? Let's review the Domestic Homicide Stats for South Australia for 2009. 14 dead. 9 women, 5 men, 4 of whom killed themselves and one shot by police in a hostage situation. All of those men who killed themselves decided to take their partners or ex-partner with them. As reported in the news, one woman was fleeing to a neighbours house and her partner walked right up to her as she begged her neighbour to let her in, took out his gun, and in point blank range, shot her in the back of the head while she was cowering. Yeah, so let's equate something like that with a bloke getting a whack around the back of his head with a handbag.

The references used in the "Fact Sheet" are narrow and tend to concentrate on the Conflict Tactics Scale. The CTS does not take into account stalking behaviours, homicides or assaults AFTER the relationship has ended and equates the emotional expression of women who throw a cup or saucer in response to their frustrations when experiencing psychological and verbal abuse with that of a man throwing something more substantial in an attempt to physically harm his partner or to threaten her or deliberately damage her treasured possessions. It also does not cover threats to a persons (usually the woman's) pets, children or other family members. Nor does it cover social or financial abuse. The CTS is usually correlated to young(er) men and women's relationship dynamics and respondents tend to be University students. Most of whom, have not been in long-term committed relationships

Quote:

"Yeah, so let's equate something like that with a bloke getting a whack around the back of his head with a handbag."

How about a woman who attacks her husband with a knife, but due to greater strength he is able disarm her, all without causing her harm? Knives kill. Bit more than being hit across the back of the head with a handbag.

Or having the steering wheel grabbed by the woman whilst the man is driving so as to try to cause an accident? Bit more than being hit across the back of the head with a handbag.

That is my situation: my wife suffers from borderline personality disorder. 75% of BPD disorder sufferers are female. Not all BPD suffers are violent, but quite a number are. But this is seen, in women, as a medical issue. In men it is a domestic violence issue.

Our home is well known to the police. Is it because of my violence? No, it is due to her's. We have had our door knocked in by heavily armed police - I was not even home. Was she taken to the cells? Was she charged (it was a seige situation)? No, she spent two nights in hospital.

So here is the situation: When she is violent and taken away by the police it is by ambulance. Is this recorded as 'domestic violence'? No, it is a medical situation. If I, or any other man, acted in the same way we would be carted off to the cells and be charged.

I do not dispute that men are responsible for most of the violence in this society: but not for all of it.

The classic example, recently there were two cases before the courts. One was a man who threw his daughter off a bridge, the other a woman who drowned her son in a suitacse.

Guess which one got most of the media coverage? Guess which one was seen as 'bad' and the other as 'mad'?

Consider how statistics, and circumstances, can be manipulated one way or another.

Hey Shivers,

It is obvious you are a feminist or a sympathiser of feminism. YOu have used all the same excuses they use and you have said in the above post that you agree to women using violence, but not men.
You discount women as being weak victims when in truth this is not the case.

The problem with feminists and their ilk, is that they do not want the truth about the dirty bad behaviour of women brought to the public attention. Women are no less violent than men, but are more violent toward their own children than the natural fathers are. You can check that for yourself with the WA dept of child protection figures from the last 4 years.

It is time we stop accepting your lies and the lies of feminists in this country who continue to push these false stats about men abusing women. They have no basis in reality, yet they are used to formulate govt policy and legislation.

The time has come for all the good men and women in this country to unite and force the govt to have all DV laws scrapped, all gender discrimination removed from all govt and NGO policy.
We need to have assault laws more fortified and if anyone is harmed whether it's inside a family or out in the street, then it is assault and it should be reported to the police, who should then investigate it and the alleged perp stand before a jury and if found guilty, be punished accordingly.
Furthermore, if a person is found to have made a false allegation of assault, then that person should also be charged, investigated and stand before a jury. If found guilty, they should be imprisoned for a minimum of 12 months to 2 years.

This will put an end to the constant Tsunami of false allegations made by women post separation, just so they can get the house, the money, oh and I forgot, the kids too.

Hi Keryn: very sad to hear about your son's plight.

Possible courses of action:

Assuming that he doesn't want to leave yet but you expect a repeat of the abusive behaviour, help him to put a safety plan in place:

Any social worker in any local community health centre will be able to give your son advice. If they can't help directly then he should ask for referral to someone who will. Even counselling notes become an official record that provide some concrete evidence to protect your son against charges of being the aggressor.

For the same reason he must contact police and go to ED or his GP to have any injuries noted.

Contrary to prevailing beliefs, many DV services WILL assist your son. If he's the victim of violence they can and often will fund emergency accommodation in a safe location (not in the shelter itself; but in the community) for him and his child (they will help with pets if they can). They're also very knowledgeable about legal services and court procedures. Suggest he phone a couple of shelters and have a chat.

Otherwise suggest that your son approach legal aid (some neighbourhood centres also provide free legal consultation for anyone) so that he understands what he needs to do to protect himself, his child and any financial assets.

You can also help by keeping a diary of events.

He can also talk to someone at the cop shop for a bit of advice. The police are very good at responding to these matters and very experienced with all sorts of abusers of both sexes. Some police stations have DV specialists available for consultation.

Lastly, he should try to speak to her GP, especially if she has a drug or alcohol problem, and let them know what is happening.

Any of those sources will give advice tailored to your son's location and situation. I hope things improve for him and for you all.

pynch

Shivers I get what you're saying and glad you said it; especially re: the rubbish Conflict Tactics Scale; the deaths of women and children and the fact that many women are in greatest danger trying to leave the abusive situation. Damned tragic. Have you seen some of the awful biz on the provocation defence?

Paw and others, I'm a feminist and have no trouble having women's violence brought to light, however I am opposed to bashing either sex and making violence by one sex an excuse for the other's violence to be minimized, excused or ignored. I've provided assistance to men in distressing relationship situations a few times over the years. It's very hard to persuade them to seek legal advice; to call the police or to step away from the abuser and leave the premises even until the situation calms down. Menz groups could help men by providing them with positive strategies to protect themselves and encouraging them to access services that are available and willing to assist.

Paw can you provide a link to the stats to which you refer. The thing is, are you referring to raw numbers or percentages ? In raw numbers, women will perpetrate more occasions of child abuse if only because they do at least 3/4 of the child care. Also, people speak about emotional and verbal abuse as if men don't also do that; abuse comes in mixed bags, in my experience.

Doug I'm sorry to hear about your situation and I know it takes a lot to persevere with anyone with mental health issues. However, it is also the case that MANY male abusers obtain what is called a Section 32 or 33 under the MH Act in NSW to enable them to obtain counselling orders and psychiatric treatment for their violent behaviour.

http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=NB02064.pdf

Drug and alcohol use is often a complicating feature for both sexes.

I see all the supporters of violence against men are still spruiking their poison. You can console yourself with the thought that as you read this, for every woman who got hit last night, 4 men did. You go grrrls...

The concept of violence, was once simple, it meant actual physical injuries and/or damage.

However like most concepts it has been manipulated, and linked to manipulation, coercion, psychological abuse etc.

Bruises are easy for people to see, however emotional manipulation/abuse is very subtle and hidden. So usually the perpetrator remains hidden/invisible.

Now take for example the concept of financial abuse, where a bloke can be accused of abuse, simply because he gives the missus limited money, now take rationing a step further, she rations sex, notice that the concept of rationing sex, is not included in sexual abuse.

Typically feminists will only include concepts that support their dogma, and selectively reject concepts when equally applied that do not support their dogma.

Shivers, I would recommend you look again at the research on the One in Three website. The Overview page contains many items that aren't derived from the CTS, such as crime figures for domestic assault, police reports of family violence, intimate partner homicides, admissions to hospital for family violence injuries and domestic and family violence protection orders. I would also suggest looking at the FAQs page, where the other issues you have raised are addressed in detail.

My Son was born in October 1993, My wife goes back to work early 94 late Jan early Feb, sh/t was occurring in her workplace and started coming into our home mid to late 94, she commences to use amphetamines to continue to work and the rows start building until May 95 we decide to separate as she is sleeping around to get the drugs and rowing every second day and she signs custody over to me and our son and I look for a flat to move to with little or no assistance for a man and child from any agency(just not available) after things settle and my wife is on a Mental Health Plan we attempt rebuilding the marriage early 96 and for about 10 months things do seem to be working then late 96 she goes back to using amphetamines and sleeping around early 97 she gets arrested with our son present
Then rows start again and it is alleged that I Bashed and Starved our son DoCS remove our son May 97 the B&S allegations prove false and vindictive but the people that made those allegations still have our son and DoCS commence all efforts to give our son to these very people taking every word that they say as gospel and this verballing has continued with lie after lie year after year and it is all my fault as I am the male and whatever a female says whether she has proof or not is gospel 9 years I put up with this and DoCS will not allow me to access our son. The rotten bastard that made the low allegation of B&S at the start is controlling the show and DoCS wont do a thing. We separate 2006 still the lies are going on Feb 2009 the ex's mother places more lies before a Court for the removal of our son while I am facing trial Feb 2010 with a totally different yarn from the ex as to our son's removal
Still I am the villian
Thanks from
Dave
graysond49@yahoo.com
0421 949 734

Percusso, I did do what you suggested before I posted. I even went to some of the original sources - the journals etc. I also visited the FAQ's page. My opinion will not change with a second visit. I recognised, from my study and work, the authors and their reports. There there is much other research available that does not majorly substantiate the viewpoint of such reports. It has been my experience that articles such as this, tend to cherry pick.

Both men and women dish out abuse. And women can be violent, and are actually getting more violent than they used to be. It's a fact that cannot be ignored, and while this occurs, there will always be some research that discusses women's use of abuse and violence against their men-folk. But between the sexes, there are some major differences, such as motivators for use of abusive behaviour, acknowledging responsibility, long-term outcomes for the victims and the levels of DV that result in catastrophic consequences.

Anti
Where are all these women who support violence against men? I find it very hard to believe your figures that for every one women facing DV each day four men are also victims.

While I understand men may be less willing to admit to experiencing violence for all the old cultural reasons ie. feelings about masculinity, strength etc, I cannot see my peer group of women going home each night and abusing their husbands. In fact I know they don't. With some exceptions, I have generally found men to be more aggressive than women. I am not imagining these things they are just my own personal experience.

I am not sure how I feel about women being painted as 'the more violent gender" by one poster. People can't have it both ways arguing we are the weaker sex on one hand and then when it suits coming up with that sort of statement just to suit your own argument.

Men who paint this sort of picture are no better and just as radical as women who argue that all men are capable of rape if they knew they could get away with it.

It would be very difficult to live with someone suffering from a mental illness or drug problem and thankfully I have never had to face those experiences.

Thank you Warwick for your balanced and well written comments. We need to get some semblance of responsibility about figures and stats if we are to give support to any victim of violence, women or men.

At the end of the day it is the violence and the perpetrators we should be focussing on rather than obsessing on gender.

Dave

Of course you are the villain. You are a man. The women who raves on so much about sexist behavour if a man disagrees with a woman is the same who is blind to her own sexist attitudes.

I had hoped that the sexist feminist sector would stay out of this debate. They seem to be a small minority of women judging by the women I meet, but they scream sexist, sexist, sexist so loudly that it is difficult to hear anyone else. It is case of the vocal few messing it up for those who want to deal with the problem objectively.

Violence is not sexually based. It is people based. The article is conservative in number of men subjected to domestic violence, but that irrelevant. The mix is of no importance. If there is violence against a person then there is violence. The sex of the perpetrator or victim does not matter.

I survived many knife attacks but always disarmed my attacker. Do these attacks count as domestic violence because I was not injured? Do I have to be physically injured to be a victim? Women may receive injures more often that men because physical factors but when did physical injury become the sole focus?

I know several men and women who have been the victims of domestic violence. It is not the violence itself that is the main fear even though the injuries may be serious. It is the ongoing fear and anticipation beforehand that causes the most damage.

And even after the victim leaves the violent situation the violence can continue for years after in the form Dave outlined. This is one area where sex does matter. If a women leaves an abusive marriage she is believed and (rightly) the man is the bad guy. If a man leaves an abusive marriage he is not believed, there must be another reason. And the perpetrator is always will to provide the reason why the victim is the bad guy.

Dave, nothing is going to change until our society stops seeing domestic violence in sexist terms.

Gentlemen, you are wasting your time attempting to explain anything to shivers, Pynchme or any of the other radical, extremist, red, green, loony, left, femanazi's. They will always rig stats in favour of their propaganda and claim the corrected, peer reviewed, surveys, (which find the opposite of their lies) are rigged, when they are not. Check out the books &/or website of Dr. Warren Farrell, with a little investigation, he found dozens of DV surveys which showed women being more violent than men, which the femanazi's, did not, leak to the mass media, when they got the wrong results. They will not rest until every Australian child has been groomed for abuse.

And no pynchme, i have not heard of a single case, anywhere, in which a father could get any assistance from the relevant authorities to protect his children from their violent, abusive, deadbeat, mother, let alone himself, despite bruises, broken bones & knife wounds. Men like this can be found every weekend in police lock ups charged with DV offences. Even when, the crazed she-devil, has no injuries, or minor defensive injuries, much less serious than his. I suppose you could call it protective custody.

I repeat, do you support, the right of children, abused, since the 70's by deliberate government policy to sue our governments, for being "Left Behind" with their abusive, deadbeat, mothers by corrupt social workers, despite credible reports of neglect & abuse.

Whenever a femanazi speaks, i am reminded of the "Monty Python" skit in which John Cleese & Micheal Palin have a "discussion", about whether, they are in fact, "having an argument" or not & whether it has been paid for, or not, etc, etc, etc.

It is not good to see a gender war of words in this forum as it does neither side any benifit.

I agree that while gender needs to be taken out of domestic violence, if a man does hit they are more likely to do damage. What concerns me is why anyone would choose to use violence in a realionship with a loved one.

I don't think this article is trying to say its all women's fault. It is pointing out that men can be victims of violence AS WELL as women and children. Violent perpetrators are not just from one or the other gender, but can include same sex couples, women and men.

Lets tackle the issue of family violence as a community, not as a gender issue. Violence is violence and it should not be condoned.

By challenging violence in the family we might even be able to teach people that it is not ok to be violent to others in the community.

Please in this debate, leave gender or sex out of it.

Aka,

I agree with you 100% on leaving gender out of this debate/issue/or whatever else you wish to call what we are discussing.

However, what you and I want, is absolutely NOT going to happen!!

Please take into account the following:

1. There is ZERO, that is "0" help by way of emergency care, police aid, govt aid and community understanding or belief, for men who have been abused or are still experiencing abuse.
2. The govt, all NGOs and most of the Aust public, have swallowed the sweet smelling vomit that comes from the radical feminists with those organisations, that all men are abusers/paedophiles and that all women are victims of men and are incapable of committing any abuse on any human being.
3. In Victoria now, and also other states for some time too, they are teaching young boys to behave like girls. To play like girls.
But worst still, they are teaching young boys about domestic violence from preschool age upward and not teaching girls the same.
The whole program is only targetting boys, because they are still peddling the lie that females are not violent.

YOu see, the whole issue outside of this debate on this forum is 100% gender based and it is so damn wrong, that is borders on pure evil.

We need to get women in this country to stop believing the lies about domestic violence and to start to demand that the discriminatory laws and policies be scrapped and returned to a gender nutral position.
The problem is, this won't happen and we will never get past the position we are stuck in, which is the fact that all aspects of this topic are gender based and gender biased against men and boys.

The only thing all this hatred toward men and boys is achieving, is the return of the hatred back to the women.
Can't they see this?

AKA

I agree totally. That is what so many men have been trying to do for years. The perception that domestic violence is gender based is the problem. Man always perpetrator, women always victim.

It is an attitude that is enshrined in or society, our legal system, community aid systems. Simply put, we do not exist. The only person who can imagine the total isolation of being a male victim of domestic violence is another male victim of domestic violence. Not even a female victim can experience it.

Is it surprising so many men hate women? It is very hard to hold on to the understanding that it is people, not men and women, when society does not even acknowledge your existence.

This attitude is also detrimental for female victims. It engenders such fear of men into some female victims that it often makes it impossible for them to form any meaningful relationships with men. And if a women is the perpetrator where does she go for help without being a freak? There are women out there screaming out for help, and all they get is a handful of mother's little helpers.

For the sake of all victims of domestic violence just recognise victims as victims and perpetrators as perpetrators. Then we might get somewhere.

Paw, I don't agree that it is not going to happen, the voice of the Feminist Mafia is the only voice that has been heard for so long that getting the message across is going to be very difficult. The 1 in 3 campaign is a first small step but if it is nurtured it can grow.

I suggest that those taking part in this debate don't just keep it here. Email the link to your local member, state and federal. Email it to the education department telling them that what they are doing to boys when 'teaching' about domestic violence is abuse in itself. Email it to anyone you can think of who need to hear the message including Family Court lawyers.

Pelican:"I find it very hard to believe your figures that for every one women facing DV each day four men are also victims."

You're quite right, my figure also referred to the men who are assualted outside the home. As I have said several times, instead of trying to isolate a specific form of violence that disproportionately affects women and ignoring the far larger amount of violence that affects males we have lost the plot. I merely wished to highlight that.

pelican:"Where are all these women who support violence against men?"

By ignoring at the highest level the violence that is directed at men, the feminist women (and a few self-serving men)in charge of most of the "violence industry" and virtually all of the funding have made it clear that "violence against men is OK", at least in their view.

I doubt you're among them, but by buying into the genderised nature of the subject offered by their propaganda, you're offering your support to their position. Is that really what you want to do?

Aka, spot on.

I've been thinking, which is always a dangerous thing to do, but the gendered feminists like Suzi, Sykes and co, try very hard to make their attacks against people who do not agree whole heartedly with them PERSONAL.

My suppositions are
1) they themselves like Erin Pizzey writes, family terrorists.

2) this one is more likely the accurate suppostion, they find it too confronting to have to deal with ideas and realities that conflict with their own belief systems, so it best to shot the messanger rather than deal with a more accurate picture.

3)dwg presented a picture that perhaps everywomen has at some time engaged in a similar type of behaviour, and to be confront with this is not a comfortable experience, so the best defence is offence.

Typically as Shivers points out, firstly the definition of domestic violence, is expanded, and then the arguement falls back onto who is most at risk of being murdered.

The fact is to be murdered in a DV situation, is about 1 in 500,000. More people die from medical neglicence per year, than are killed in a DV situation.

Davivy,
"It is an attitude that is enshrined in or society, our legal system, community aid systems. Simply put, we do not exist."

Women victims of women's spite also do not exist and I have seen plenty in the workplace.

Human Rights on gender, race and religion but none if you are simply human. Go figure.

Everyone shoould have the right to live free from harrassment, violence, bullying and discriminatory government policy.

Now that we have decided that there is a large amount of violence that few people seem to care about, the question remains what do we do about it? So what can we do to reduce the amount of violence in our society?

AKA,Paw,Daviy,JamesH, and others the women as well that have commented on my situation I thank you all,

TORTURE,"is defined to mean the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering on a person by an act or series of acts done on one or more than one occassion, "Pain and Suffering" includes physical, mental,psychological or emotional pain or suffering,whether temporary or permanent." max penalty (14 years imprisonment)

Now all you that I have fore mentioned plus many more agree on one point Violence must stop, all of you have asked to leave the gender out of it, bruises, cuts and yes even broken bones can and will heal in a reasonable time frame.

Mental "Torture" can take a life time to heal and while ever we get side tracked by the gender issue we will never be able to change a thing.

The Governments don't want to admit this side of the argument as it will leave the agencies in a very precarious situation as torture is not only an Australian Criminal Offence it is Criminal under International Laws so while ever the Governments can keep the spotlight on the female situation then it takes the attention away from the Very Serious issue of "Torture".

That is why the Governments don't want to acknowledge the causes of the Drug and Alcohol abuse that is in Society because of the self medication by people for the depression caused by the Governments

Depression. A Psychological Illness, ie Torture

Thanks All
Only the Best
From Dave

So two out of every three victims of domestic violnce are women? Then why such apparent hatred and maligning of them? Womens services are set up for women, and have no role to assist or lobby for mens services - heck most of them cant help women very well either, especially with difficult and ongoing issues. So why not lobby for better services that can do the job, instead of manipulating stats, cherry picking, arguing the gender wars. Nothing allegedly relative to the mens argument - not being believed, not getting a fair go etc isn't also the lot of many female victims. And all types of 'victims' - men, women and children can get help thru victims services, so that 'men get no help argument isn't really quite right.
And to say the sytem is anti-male is an absurdity - although many men suffer in it. So do women, and so do kids affected by violence.

I am really surprised that a recent victim hasn't been mentioned yet: a high profile male who, according to some reports, was attacked by his wife weilding a weapon. He fled the house rather than trying to defend himself - which is the best way for a male to deal with this, but the woman keeps attacking him with the weapon.

Who you may ask?

Tiger Woods.

But let us see how this story panned out: first part was we were told that he had a car accident near his home very early one morning. Sounds innocent enough - then we hear about cuts on his face - not the usual injuries from a low speed car accident in a large SUV. Al;cohol was not involved. So here we have a top sportsman who, whilst sober, cannot drive very far.

Then another story comes out - it is alleged that he was being assaulted by his wife with a golf club - that she continues to try to attack as he drives away, belting the car. In his desperation he is distracted and prangs the car and his wife goes at him with the golf club through the windscreen.

Then the story changes: as we all know men don't get assaulted by women - so firstly he refuses to talk to the police (would he have been believed?). Then a statement is issued where he blames himself.

All so very typical of male victim behaviour. Deny Deny Deny

Dougthebear, the above story you told is only a rumour so far.

Another rumour we are told is that while Mrs. Tiger remains at home in USA looking after their toddler and a newborn baby, Mr. Tiger goes to work in Australia and has his lover staying on the same floor with him at his hotel.

How very convenient for him. How very upsetting for a new mother, to be betrayed by the father of her new baby. It should not have (allegedly) descended to violence of course, but I can understand why she was feeling a bit angry at Mr. Tiger, can't you?

I also can't help but wonder what Mr.Tiger would have done to her if the shoe was on the other foot?

All pure speculation at this time, of course

Ah, so blame the husband - he deserved it for alleged infelidelities.

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to bring that up as a justification for domestic violence against males.

So a suspicion of an affair is sufficient reason for a woman to use a weapon on her husband in your mind Suzi? Is that what you were saying?

Think about that for a moment.

Here are two links discussing the move to re-educate (only) boys about domestic violence.

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=4409
http://mensnewsdaily.com/sexandmetro/2009/11/26/beware-boys-the-female-taliban-is-coming-for-you/

Suzeonline,
"How very convenient for him. How very upsetting for a new mother, to be betrayed by the father of her new baby. It should not have (allegedly) descended to violence of course, but I can understand why she was feeling a bit angry at Mr. Tiger, can't you?

So you can understand violence committed by a woman with a weapon on a man?

Can you then understand a man that fights to bring his child home from care, that child has been both physically abused and psychologically abused, taken from his father by absolute bullsh/t, that father learning the law and reading and understanding John Bowlby, probably the most eminient that has lived in the field of attachment and bonding,seeing your child wasting physically, crying for his parents until he makes himself physically sick,had an axe, shovel, rake,rocks all thrown at the father, and the mother using the excuse that it is because she is losing it because of the loss of our son, buying a home to bring the child to while the mother and her boyfriend scam to take that home from the father,the mother sleeping with anyone that would give her drugs, my boss, my step-brother,etc etc

The father finally breaks

Assault occassioning bodily harm, carries 7 years gaol, Torture carries 14 years gaol which do you consider is then recognised as the more serious crime?

Give this bloody gender war a miss why don't everyone and clean up all violence it is not acceptable for women to use weapons or psychological torture on a male

Women break so do Men

Equality for all is required

Thanks from
Dave

Why do you say all violence is wrong but only use examples of women, the allegedly bashing a car in another country -why dont we stay right here in OZ? Women on drugs? Absolutely awful. Does hurting her help - and am well aware of the paucity of mental health & services. Women bruise if you hold them off? Do you simply disregard the plight of women (by your own figures 2/3 being beaten by men who also drive erratically, drunk, drugged, who threaten to kill and do - pets, plants, people, sabotage cars - whatever. (Not ignoring violent women, but why are you so blinkered?) I'm also sceptical about the 1/3 figure - perhaps possibly like the '5 men a day campaign alleging men were driven to suicide by Family Courts' when the figures were inflated - and if it was one a day that was too many, but why exaggerate? Why? cos it sounds good? It gets attention, Who cares, so long as we get what we want? But what is it you want, violence to stop, services for men, or just to bag out women? Of course men need good services, but you have to develop them - the womens ones have been around for only 35 of the past 200 years and are falling far short of need.

It also seems to me that the rabid personal hatred of all things female are reframed as 'feminist' or feminazi. Is that to control the discussion and beat any other view?

shivers,

'motivators for use of abusive behaviour'

Rehhh he he he heallly. Nothing stinks more of deliberate bias and double standards than comments like that.

I give this 'oneinthree' lot about as much credence as the White Ribbon lot's cherry picking and distortion.

Let's just forget about all the hyperbole and 'raising awareness' crap, and start again with the undeniable and instinctively true assumptions that.

Men and women have equally propensity for violence/aggression/manipulation.
Men are often stronger and do more serious damage, though women can use weapons.
Any solution to domestic violence should encompass both the man and women in the relationship, avoid abuser-victim dichotomy and gender stereotyping, and avoid simplistic assumptions to the emotional power balance in relationships.

Daviy,

'The mix is of no importance. If there is violence against a person then there is violence. The sex of the perpetrator or victim does not matter.

... Women may receive injures more often that men because physical factors but when did physical injury become the sole focus?'

Spot on. And why wait until someone dies, surely concentrating on the use of aggression and abuse by both men and women in relationships would be more effective. I think 80% of violence in relationships both partners are violent, depending on what stats you want to cherry-pick.

James answers you below though...

James,

'firstly the definition of domestic violence, is expanded, and then the argument falls back onto who is most at risk of being murdered.'

suzeonline,

'I can understand why she was feeling a bit angry at Mr. Tiger, can't you?'
Reverse that and put it on the Strayla says no campaign I think. Good work! Pure speculation indeed but very revealing on how quick you come to excuse violence by a woman.

shivers,

Is Suze's speculation one of those more valid female 'motivators'?

Cotter,

In all you wrote you have espoused the same old feminist mantra that has been used against men for the past 35 years.

By the way, women did very little to get all the services that were introduced to serve them, back in the 1970s.
These services along with No Fault Divorce, were introduced into every western nation on earth in the same era. If you don't believe me, Google the timelines of events.

I have read this thread from start to finish and I have not seen anyone here bagging women as you put it. The truth is, people like you have not just bagged men, but vilified men for nearly 40 years.

There was one other female on this forum who made stupid comments about getting help if we are abused. This is the typically insulting verbal diarrhoea men have to endure from arrogant women who have no idea of what exists out there or doesn't exist and they don't care either.
There is not one service in the whole of Aus. that is specifically for abused men and/or their children. There are NO police who will deal appropriately with a violent woman and no govt worker or politician who will believe it or address it.

Men have been fighting for these services for years and no govt will do the right thing, because they fear the backlash from the radical influences within govt who demand that there be no services for men.

You women have to get off the 'poor me' band wagon. Stop making excuses for why women are violent. The majority of violent women are not insane, but do it deliberately and premeditatedly and they must be punished as harshly as the men currently are.

Stop saying women are as good as men, but when they do something wrong, it's because they are weaker and easily driven to it by horrible men.
That is a lie and a coppout. You can't have it both ways!

Assault is Assault!
We need to have all assault and false allegations, dealt with harshly and the perpetrators imprisoned.

I have found two basic models of feminism amongst women I have met. The 'Gloria Stienham' model that goes 'there are problems in our society that need to be fixed.' And I agree that there are problems, many problems, that need to be fixed.

The other is the 'Germaine Greer' model that goes along the lines that 'You hate me because you are a male chauvinist pig.' To which my usual answer is along the lines 'up yours sister.' Thus proving that I really do hate her and I really am a male chauvinist pig. This form of feminism has done women a great disservice.

To all the Germaine Greer's out there, you are irrelevant to this argument. It will get us nowhere pandering to your twisted reality. To all the Gloria Stienham's out there, the sexualisation of domestic violence is a problem that needs to be fixed. The fixing of this problem is for every ones benefit.

I hope we can move on from the debate on feminism and start looking for answers. At the moment I can see none, but that does not mean there are not any.

A first step in addressing family violence is to recognise that it happens. For men this has been a difficult issue.

The next step is to be clear that voilence is not an appropriate way to sort out difficulties and that there are better and more rewarding ways.

Most important of all is that we, as individuals and collectively, need to speak out against all forms of violence, particularly that in the family.

Is there any time when violence is acceptable with your loved ones?

I don't believe it when men state that 'she made me hit her cos she just wouldn't shut up' or some such bs. Nor do i believe women who state that 'he made me do it, he is such a ...'. I have also heard that it is not IF a man hits, its WHEN. What a lot of rot, for all the men and women who are violent there are more who are not.

I do believe that women can get bruises from men holding thier wrists to stop the woman from hitting/scratching, and I believe the police also are aware of it.

One of my main concerns is that not enough men are comfortable enough to talk to thier friends (and perhaps not enough men are comfortable to hear) about being in a violent relationship for fear of ridicule.

So lastly, I would like to suggest that if the topic is raised more often by those who care, more men and women might be able to seek the help they deserve. Ask your mates outright if you are concerned about them, it might make all the difference

Cotters suggestion that men need to develope their own services, is a typical separatist attitude. Why do we need to have separate services for men and women.

It would be like having separate public transport services for men and women.

To tackle the issue of violence, we need a holistic approach, not an approach that serves to aleinate men and women from each other.

<Do you experience insomnia, nightmares, fatigue, nausea, aches and pains, and an underlying sense of dread? Do you feel like you’re always waiting for the other shoe to drop? Is it difficult for you to trust others because you’re worried they’ll hurt you? Do you frequently feel ashamed, guilty, and worthless? Are you involved with an abusive, narcissistic or borderline woman?>
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2009/11/30/betrayal-trauma-how-men-are-affected-by-abusive-women/

Perhaps the main reason for women to resist making treatment of DV more holistic, is that they will be confronted about their own destructive behaviour.

Sure not all women will engage in such behaviour, just as not all men behave in an abusive way towards women.

But some people engage in exactly the same type of behaviour, that they accuse the male posters here of doing.

Cotter. In answer to your statement 30/11/09 " that to say the system is anti-male is an absurdity". I suggest you look at the tens of millions of dollars that the government is pouring into combatting violence against women and children and look at the zero dollars that is being put into combatting violence against men. I hope your mathematical ability is better than your eyesight.If as you admit many men are suffering in it why isn't money being put into it.
SUZI. Only late last year a woman here in south australia set fire to her husbands genitals and burnt him to death along with their house and almost killed their children in the process because she believed he was unfaithful.Her defence was to say that "his penis belongs to me". And this is NOT speculation. Go figure.

Daviy
"I have found two basic models of feminism amongst women I have met. The 'Gloria Stienham' model that goes 'there are problems in our society that need to be fixed."

Yes there are two. I am of the camp that women can be authors of their own destiny..to a point. They can and do take responsibility for bad choices. I am also of the view in a society like ours there is a very clear trend of emotional abuse amongst everyone. From schoolyard bullying to the workplace it is almost the only qualification one needs to succeed. That concerns.

However, normally being one who would recommend a holistic approach I am concerned after reading many posts made by males. There is evidence in the writing style of obvious distress and mental health injury. Yet so many criticise them. You hurt and send this message and in return people abuse you? This is systematic abuse. We really need to give each other a bit of time and lend an ear. I am concerned to a high degree that victims seem to be easy targets for the next round of bullying. I have seen it before and have experienced it before. You are emotionally weakened by one over time and your perceived weakened state just attracts further bullying like bees to a honeypot. It is a form of torture and good people's lives ruined by it.

I do not think gender bias in support services should exist but perhaps the real victims here are men. They have no support and when they make a call for help they get spat at by other bullies. It is a concern, too many men calling for help over too many forums.

Apart from that the real easy option is for adults to grow up. Spitting venom only upsets the kids, ruins family gatherings and breaks hearts. Never seen it do any good.

TheMissus
"However, normally being one who would recommend a holistic approach I am concerned after reading many posts made by males."
And
" You hurt and send this message and in return people abuse you? This is systematic abuse. You are emotionally weakened by one over time and your perceived weakened state just attracts further bullying like bees to a honeypot. It is a form of torture and good people's lives ruined by it."
The thing is this is not a form of torture it is by the definition of the criminal intent torture.
To see your wife treated like a whore fed drugs and alcohol so she will be that way, at the time under Mental Health, and made believe that it is all my fault (the male)
Knowing that she was a good mother and could have stayed a good mother who our child loved as equal as he did me and yet where was the assistance?
Our son removed and given to the "parents" that raised her and locked from our lives, us trying to be a family but one short that being our son
This is not a form of torture it is TORTURE
Thanks for your time
From Dave

Aka and TheMissus thank you so much for your posts. Both have expressed parts of the issue very well. There are some other great posts on this thread and thank you to those who care enough to speak out. For those who don't get what TheMissus is talking about have a look at the two consecutive posts by Psychme at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3252#77365

That is in my experience and observations somewhat typical of the attitudes men who speak out against violence by a female partner face from those who claim to be there to help.

Some have observed that you need to develop a thick skin but I'll pass thanks. It's not worth the cost.

R0bert

Oh dear, I certainly caused a stir with my last post by daring to answer poor dougthebears' post re allegations about Tiger Wood's wife attacking him with a golfclub.
Now really guys, if you read my post I did say it shouldn't have descended into violence didn't I?

In no way was I condoning the alleged domestic violence, merely stating the supposed full story rather than the abridged version Doug gave us.

Granted, I was stupid to take the bait and speak out about the wife, but I do feel sorry for her situation.

Big strong unfaithful Tiger is well able to look after himself and doesn't need all the women-haters of the world feeling sorry for him and his little wounds- poor baby!

There is quite an interesting conversation on Tiger Woods and his drama related to this very subject here:

The topic header is:-
I wonder if Tiger Woods will get the same treatment Rihanna got when it came to domestic violence? Somehow, I doubt Diane Sawyer will be interviewing him on Good Morning America about his injuries--at least, not with any sympathy.

http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2009/11/i-wonder-if-tiger-woods-willget-same.html

So on to the latest joke.

What is the difference between a car and a golf ball.?

Tiger Woods can drive a golf ball 400 yards :)

Woods appeared to be following the standard advice given to males when they are under attack from a female partner: that is leave the premises. Usually the NSW police tell the male to go for a walk. Unless the male has suffered a serious injury requiring medical treatment, even if the male has done nothing wrong, then it is the male who leaves, not the female.

If the male is the perpetrator then the male is removed. No question.

The fact that Woods was leaving at that time in the morning without a good reason - otherwise he would have had a chat with the constabulary by now - the only logical conclusion is that is was being chased out of the home.

An ABC article at http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/22/2604559.htm is interesting.

And I have been personally told by a police sgt that no magistrate will even issue an AVO against a 'sick old women' (ie, over 50) no matter what she does.

So Suzie, how would you suggest I deal with the problem? Perhaps go to the extreme and use 'battered wife syndrome' as a defence?

I think not, because as a recent case shows it does not work. (and I could not live with myself, as I would not take another person's life before my own0

Compare

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Abused-wife-cleared-of-husbands-murder/2006/03/03/1141191843495.html

with

http://www.theage.com.au/national/abuse-no-excuse-for-killing-says-judge-20091120-iqyy.html

So I will just wait until my father passes away, and I won't have his heart to break before I end this damned pain.

suzeonline, "Big strong unfaithful Tiger is well able to look after himself and doesn't need all the women-haters of the world feeling sorry for him and his little wounds- poor baby!"

You have just proved the arguments of the 'other side'.

Just to add, the professional golf circuit is very testing, yet Tiger Woods has always comes across as a very respectful, kind and generous person who is unflappable and wouldn't hurt a fly.

It is a very sad state of affairs that he is immediately the butt of jokes because of his flight from his spouse wielding a dangerous weapon that could easily kill.

Had the circumstances been reversed, with Tiger angrily wielding the golf club and had his wife shot and killed him with a pistol to protect herself, there would have been a deluge of sympathy from the media who would be writing articles everywhere about men and violence. Does anyone think that under those circumstances the wife would not have escaped gaol because of justifiable homicide and notwithstanding Tiger's previous placid character and good behaviour?

The best joke?

"Woods' wife claimed she only smashed the car's rear window with a golf club to let Tiger get out of the wreck."

Dougthebear, I am sorry you seem to think I was having a go at you personally, I wasn't. I may not agree with your views on women and violence, but I certainly don't want you to think that I don't believe there are some very violent women out there.

I was once working for a short time in a women's prison, and I have also worked for 5 years in Aboriginal health. I have seen some really violent, nasty women and their families.

However, the sheer magnitude of the violence perpetrated by men against other men, women and children far outweighs that done by women.
The physical damage done by men towards their victims is also much worse,in the majority of cases. This is not in dispute. I have dealt with these injuries in others for years. All violence is abhorrent to me.

Doug, it sounds like you need to get some help if you are feeling so low as you sound in your last post. Please get some help.

suzeonline:"the sheer magnitude of the violence perpetrated by men"

Is not actually that great. The total amount of actual violence in our society is really very small, but you'd never know it to listen to the DV industry shills, busy justifying their next lot of unaccountable tax-free taxpayer dollars.

Furthermore, most violence is perpetrated within specific communities and socio-economic environments and within the home most is to some degree mutual. Public violence too is rarely an isolated event, but usually involves escalation from both sides before erupting into serious physical assault. Often it involves young women "egging on" the boys to fight over them, or a young man trying to impress a girl by "standing up" for her. Increasingly, they involve young women attacking men or each other.

As others have pointed out, alcohol and/or drugs (especially amphetamines, stoners rarely fight) are predisposing factors in very many cases. Women drink and take drugs as much, if not more than men do, although they rarely pay their own way when doing so.

None of those examples of violent behaviour are addressed by "violence against women is never acceptable", except perhaps the last. The women are not the subject of the violence in most cases, although they may well be the object of it.

If you were truly concerned about reducing the "sheer magnitude" of violence, you'd be supporting any effort to address it instead of looking for excuses for violent women like Mrs Woods and Katie Milligan, Greg Bird's g/f.

The missus:"You hurt and send this message and in return people abuse you?"

Every revolution needs to have a victim class and an oppressor class. It's basic Marxism. Every revolutionary needs to know that she is firmly within the victim class, even if she's the new President. Members of the oppressor class can buy themselves some favour by cooperating with the revolution, perhaps even swearing allegiance to the ideals of the revolution, after which they are allowed to wear a badge (or perhaps a Ribbon) which proclaims their subservience.

Refuseniks are not worthy of anything but abuse. Perhaps you need reeducation...

suzeonline,

Still showing your bias.

'I do feel sorry for her situation'

Would you feel sorry for a man who swung a golf club at his wife because he believed she was having an affair?

'Big strong unfaithful Tiger is well able to look after himself and doesn't need all the women-haters of the world feeling sorry for him and his little wounds- poor baby!'

Would you trivialise violence buy a man against a woman with a weapon like this? Really? And outright ridicule a woman being attacked by a man with a golf club?

I'd say if a man wrote this about violence against women it would be considered highly offensive!

Doug,

I understand where you are coming from.

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2009/11/30/betrayal-trauma-how-men-are-affected-by-abusive-women/

Paw, et al

Your claims, and following the Gloria model rather than the Germain, the law and a just little Googling etc will explain that contrary to your view, every state offers support to victims of crime. ie people. That means you.

There are Family Support services. Men & kids.
Relationships Australia
Mensline?
Lifeline,
www.ntv.net.au etc
Dads in distress
Lone fathers association
Etc - funding to address the needs of men (not women in general)

While I disapprove of the endless pilot projects strategy, rather than core services, it is from lobbying that political will moves, and vitriol is less effective than logic and reason.

Antiseptic, re figures - were men assaulted by other men in domestic situations included? Men are far more likely to be victims of violent crime than women, but so far the stats reflect that violence is more often by other men. Not 'never by women' as this forum insists.

And Daviy *sigh, 'teaching' about domestic violence is abuse in itself'? this forum screams ignorance about what DV is. I wonder if you and i had all learned about it as children whether we'd have been more successful in taking positive but peaceful action to address issues, perhaps before the actual violence which leads to family breakdown.

Separatist attitude - whomever? No. But beware what you wish for so men dont just fall into the same gaps in services that women and children do.
My tinsywinsy school of practice doesn't like all the 'specialisations' of crime types. I prefer to work with people. rather than put them in little boxes then tell them what they can have, rather than what they need.

And eyeinthe sky and all you others who think the law is anti male - explain how the law of provocation routinely used to excuse male violence (including murder) supports your contention - imagined infidelity is just cause for murder - often. Ps, gruesome killing of that man. No doubt the law will play 'what's your excuse' while the victim's family will be silenced, as usual. Ask Phil Cleary, Jane Ashton, and many others.

Cotter,

I see you made some vain attempt to find services for men on the internet and you came up with the same as we men do.
The services you have found are either for suicide prevention, or for men who are abusers. Relationships Aust. is a feminist run organisation that only has women working there, well in my district that is, and they only see things from a 'female is the victim' perspective. I know, because I wasted the money on one visit.

Mensline is for abusers, not victims. That was what they told me!
DIDS was nearly shut down this year, because the mongrel females in Canberra tried to have the funding cut, but it is mostly run by volunteers in the outstations. These are good men, true giants and heroes, who race out at night to stop a man from shooting or hanging himself, because this man has just lost his children and everything he owns for the next 20 years.
Lone fathers are not big and telephone help only.

The problem is women like you and suzie who believe that there is this shere magnitude of abusive men out there; are so full of lies and fear, that you try to ram it down the throats of everyone you speak to. Even the Aust bureau of stats, shows that DV is very small in our society, yet all we hear in the media is that it is in every second house next to ours and it is a woman who is suffering.
BS!

Why are you women still coming into this discussion denying the truth about the fact that your own gender is equally as violent?
Why will you not engage in a discussion to suggest some real changes to make the whole issue of DV gender nutral?
Why do you continue to peddle the feminist mantra with false stats and lies about men's services and the lack thereof?

We will never move forward until such time that we see all services equal for both genders, but children being the focus first and foremost!

Come on guys (and real women). You know you are going to get …. from the feminist mafia. But they are not the real women. There is no point in knocking on the door when there is no one home to take the message.

This article has done male victims a massive favour. It has provided a small but important window of opportunity to talk about an issue that society as a whole is in total denial about. It is a long time since I physically left that violence behind and it came as a shock to find just how it all came back immediately I read the article.

I do know the issues both from being a victim of domestic violence and from working in the area of drug and alcohol addiction. Alcohol drugs and violence are all mixed up together. The split on addiction is 50/50 for men and women, and so is the violence. There is a major problem for women addicts in that in some way it is OK, even a badge of honour in some circles, for a man to be an alky, but a women alky is the lowest of the low.

It is the same for violent females. The fear and self loathing I have seen in female perpetrators when in 'safe' situations is unbelievable, but publically they still have to maintain the position that 'He deserved it.' If they do not they are as much a freak as male victims. I wish I could go further here but I must respect anonymity so that 'safe' remains safe.

Our societal expectations of men and women make it as impossible for a woman to admit she is in trouble as it is for a man to admit to being a victim. Give a thought for the female perpetrator. I am being serious here. The services for the female perpetrator are as limited as the services for the male victim.

Continued

Part 2

How are we going to get help for male victims of domestic violence whilst doing absolutely nothing for female perpetrators? Without perpetrators there are no victims. Not only do we need a holistic approach for victims we need a holistic approach for perpetrators.

One of the many things that would help is seeing all the associated problems surrounding alcohol, drugs and violence as being so intertwined that it is pointless trying to treat one without the others.

There is a part of this debate that I find unfortunate. It is becoming narrow. Our failure to acknowledge male victims of domestic violence is in part caused by the can of worms that would be opened if we did.

Is our society ready to confront the real cost of alcohol/drugs/violence being exposed? That the real cost is millions of Australians huddled in fear and loathing behind their white picket fences, with the greatest fear of all being that the world might find out about their dirty grubby little secrets. Much easier to blame it on men, or blame it in women and pretend the problem does not really exist.

Millions of Australians? Addicts have parents, partners, children, siblings and so on. The actions of one addict flows on through countless people. The effect of one perpetrator and one victim of domestic violence flows on through countless people.

The police and others, unrelated to the original cause but who try to pick up the pieces suffer. The whole of society suffers. We all pay even if it only through the taxes we pay to support the meagre services that do exist.

Much easier to blame it on men, or blame it in women and pretend the problem does not really exist.

As I said at the beginning, I was a shock to find out how it all came back when I read the article.

Paw, So again you completely ignore that which doesn't support your rantings. In your condemnation of my googling, why have you again ignored the nation wide victims of crime response which is there for both genders. Because it doesn't support your 'no services for men' dogma? I'll say it so you can get it. Victim services serve men and women, but are limited by definitional stuff (for both). Services for women from women's services are inadequate. Much better than for men, because male-recipient relationship violence is an emerging issue, but still inadequate.
Heck, soon the powers that be will look at all the other gaps in services - say for children - should I live so long.

Since there is no real attempt to actually have an open discussion, by vilifying and bullying anyone who doesn't bleat in tune, I have better things to do. Oh, gosh, its time for my next appointment. Wow. Its another man. Gosh, I wonder why the poor sod would come to me for help? Again? Me being a rabbid feminist with no clue about male victims of female violence. Gosh, Mine must be one of those non-existant services, and to think we've survived more than 20 years, have a majority male Board, and many male members and happy male clients. Of course since the bleaters here refuse to acknowledge such services exist, they are hardly likely to refer men we could help. Better you stick to your dogma? Best you stay victims instead of reach out for help? The 1950's are over and even sexual violence against children can be talked about. I hope you cannot ever get these genies back into their bottles.

Next topic

Beyond Blue has a list of links to services from which *anyone* can access assistance, as well as online screening tools and information:

http://www.beyondblue.org.au/index.aspx?link_id=107.911

There are a few online etherapies available including MoodGym and the like.

In addition to providing services directly, Relationships Australia has a booklet especially for men which is available online:

http://www.relationships.com.au/resources/pdfs/books-booklets/men_and_separation.pdf

http://www.relationships.com.au/resources/publications

Men can access Family Law Advice Line 1800 050 321

Community Legal Centres – national office (02) 9264 9595
www.naclc.org.au
(Referral service to state community legal centres)

Relationships Australia publications
On Being a Dad. 2003.
What About the Children? 2003.
Share the Care: Parenting Plan. Collaborative Parenting Apart.
2007.
Call 1300 364 277 for details.

Any Australian can seek help at any hospital; any Community Health Centre; any Social Worker. If you believe you are not being heard; ask to speak to someone who will listen to you (and lodge a complaint - every health facility has a process for that or you can complain to the Health Care Complaints Commission).

You GP can help and can refer you to specialist workers.

Men as Victims of Domestic Violence (2005)

http://www.austdvclearinghouse.unsw.edu.au/PDF%20files/Men_as_Victims.pdf

Information on MensLine Australia:

http://www.crisissupport.org.au/Mensline.aspx

1300 78 99 78 (24/7)

http://www.menslineaus.org.au/

Including information on the 1 in 3 and RUOK campaigns.

Sorry Cotter I'd begun my post before your last one went up so I didn't see it.

I agree completely. Talk about a lot of sooks determined to be helpless and portray themselves as victims.

It's this sort of absurdity that is more likely to drive men in distress who don't know any better over the edge.

THERE ARE SERVICES AVAILABLE FOR ANY AUSTRALIAN MALE OR FEMALE; VICTIM OR PERPETRATOR.

I also see many male clients; I have to say that a large proportion of my clients have been victimized by other men (childhood sexual abuse; rape; other types of assault); over the years I have also assisted several male perpetrators of violence and a couple of men who have been victimized by women and I advocate for and support them with the same energy and commitment that I extend to any client male or female.

If the men here really want to assist other men who are dismayed over some issue - regardless of whether they are victim or perpetrator - I urge them to put their agenda barrow aside for a while and convey messages that actually help people by directing them to their GP; nearest hospital, Community Health Centre or preferred counselling service.

Cotter, there is one problem with your insistence that "victims of crime" services are available to both men and women. In order to receive any compensation or services, you firstly must be a "legal", victim. That is the woman who abused you and your children must be investigated by the relevant authorities, tried in a court of law and found guilty of assaulting you and/or your children.

Sadly, this almost never happens, because almost all, of the bureaucrats concerned are corrupt, femanazis, in the protect, female criminals and paedophiles, at all costs, business. Not only do they protect the real criminals, abusing Australia's children but a man who contacts a social worker to report abuse more than 3 times may find himself on a stalking charge. I kid you not, i have seen this happen. Corrupt bureaucrats & politicians will go to any lengths to protect themselves and their fellow travellers in the paedophile ring.

It would be nice to get gender out of this but conservative governments have tried to "Mainstream" social services before in order to make them available to everybody, regardless of gender, race, etc, but the same corrupt bureaucrats i mentioned earlier wanted to "fight for their turf" and create more "Jobs for the Girls".

Daviy, i here what your saying about alcohol &/or drugs, having also seen it first hand. But it is another, chicken & egg argument. Almost all of the male addicts i met were self medicating their pain as a response to female abuse. I have even, met females, who started drinking half way through a marriage, using it as one of the control mechanisms on her hapless husband/victim.

Suzeonline, why traumatise your daughter with fake stats on DV, rape, etc, when children and adolescents, living most of their lives in "flight or fight mode" end up psychotic, with nasty mental illnesses like "Borderline Personality Disorder", which is infinitely more common in women than men & has been increasing more alarmingly than depression. All 3 of my partners were crazy & violent as a direct result of being abused by their mothers.

pynchme,

'THERE ARE SERVICES AVAILABLE FOR ANY AUSTRALIAN MALE OR FEMALE; VICTIM OR PERPETRATOR.'

Yes there are and that's an excellent point and important message! You're being quite nice lately.

But in this generous mood you're in, do you at least accept a few caveats....

A lot of domestic violence type services were set up by women for women, often by women who had experienced first hand violence at the hands of a man. Now if a man turned up to such a facility telling stories of a violent relationship where he wasn't the primary aggressor but had to admit his own involvement in these violent domestic disputes, do you think all woman from the organisation would be able to accept his version of events and attempt to help him in a non-judgemental way and look to properly accept his partners abuse?

I think from your attitude to domestic violence, from the general stereotypes and community assumptions about domestic violence, it would be harder for a man to believe he is going to be believed than it is for a woman.

WHICH IS WHY YOUR POINT IS A REALLY GOOD ONE to encourage men to seek help even if they perceive (perhaps correctly) that they might encounter some resistance. Keep trying, as I'm sure soon enough they'll get that open-minded social worker.

Most importantly, given your very important point, can you see the damage the Australia Says No campaign does to the expectations of men in violent abusive relationships of being believed and helped by these services? Regardless of the reality, and regardless how open-minded you say you are, what kind of reception do you think the average man will be expecting when domestic violence is advertised by the government in this absolutist male=abuser female=victim dichotomy.

And what effect do you think this fiercely guarded representation of gender stereotypes in domestic violence by WRD type organisations has on men in need of help and their confidence of finding it without ridicule, judgement or suspicion?

Cotter, Susie and Pynchme,
you sound like you work, or worked, in the welfare field, so you must be aware that the stance in welfare education is that DV is actually 'men beating up on women' as told to me by a male social work educator.

I know when I was a child, despite the broken futniture, bruises, blood splattered like confetti on the Christmas tree, because of my extremely violent step-mother, there was no help. The police just took her away to cool down. i remember injuries caused by knifes, furniture saucepans, and even an episode with a gun (my brother kept the bolt and bullets at his mate's house because of this possibility - he was only a kid himself). When i was beaten and choked to a point of losing consciousness (rescued by my brother) the police said they couldn't do anything unless someone was murdered. That freaked me out just a lot. There was no help. My father was ridiculed by the cops but he was a sickly man at the time and no match for my stepmother.

Gender did not concern me, I just wanted the violence to stop.

It is terrible to see, otherwise good people (men and women), descend into violence.

I suggest that there is enough of the blame game on this forum. I for one would like to see us all working towards ending the violence, regardless of the gender of the perpetrator.

If you have ever experienced the sheer terror, mind altering, sound bending, time distorting TERROR that children can experience when adults fight, I think you would drop the he/she bulldust.

Well said aka, you are right of course. Children are terrified of violence wherever it comes from. Some then go on to commit violence later in life, and the cycle goes on.

It certainly shouldn't be a gender issue when discussing domestic violence. Boys are affected just as much as girls.
I for one am finished bashing my head against a brick wall with some posters on this thread.

I was so sick of the violence-induced trauma I had to deal with in casualty over the years, that I got out of there and now work in a calmer environment!

Maybe what I saw (and patched up) in those hospitals has coloured my views on domestic violence, however, I am against violence, no matter who does it.

Suzeonline:"I am against violence, no matter who does it."

Excellent, Suzie, well said. I didn't think you were one of the real manhaters, but they do make it hard for you women to express a contrary view, don't they? It's all "you're either with us or against us", "telling lies for women", "the end justifies the means", no chance of arriving at a genuine meeting of minds. I wondered how long you'd put up with it.

You realise the pynchme, et al now consider you a "traitor to your gender" don't you?

Aka, the issue of violence against children has been deliberately confused with the issue of violence against women. The original UN discussion papers were all about protecting kids. some bright spark decided that the best way to protect kids was to empower women, on the theory that mothers would protect their kids. What's happened, of course, is that when some mothers are placed under pressure and there's no man around to take it out on, the kids suffer, just as they do when some men are placed under similar pressures.

The lesson is that both genders are capable of violence. Our ancestry is uniformly violent so it should be no surprise that we possess the genes to be the same way.

Suzeonline
"Maybe what I saw (and patched up) in those hospitals has coloured my views on domestic violence, however, I am against violence, no matter who does it."

Right, Now can we all start to stop violence at all levels and continue to leave gender out of it?

We have got to start to do something very soon for the children that are coming after us.

At the moment the male violence is remaining static and the female is increasing, we have got to find what is the cause here and the only common denominator that I can find is alcohol, because the male consumption of alcohol has remained near static and it is no doubt that alcohol was/is a big issue in the male violence, female use of alcohol has increased, does anyone think that alcohol could then be the common denominator in this WHOLE VIOLENCE issue?

Further we have all these video games that have the portrayal of violence in them that both genders are watching and playing this has got to be taking affect on young minds, get the young out in the bush and let them see, feel and observe nature and see if we can bring some interest of our surrounds into the lifes of the young

Thanks All
From Dave

Suzeonline:"I am against violence, no matter who does it."

There are already a range of measures to stop men from being violent, but little is being done to stop violent women. If we as a society are going to stop this violence, the first step might be to stop automatically seeing these women as victims (and you can't blame the victim). Therefore campains like WRD need to either change or gto.

benk,
"Suzeonline:"I am against violence, no matter who does it."

"There are already a range of measures to stop men from being violent, but little is being done to stop violent women."

Give Suze a break now, she has already conceded a 50/50 deal with us
so lets work with Suze and progress now to stop Violence and get away from the gender thing.

With someone like Suze prepared to work with the males we may be able to build for our kids

One little step for men a bloody giant step for Suze,

We can succeed if we all just pull together, I want a better world not only for my son (that I am not even allowed to contact) but a better world for all children

If we can come up with an equality based argument to put before the Governments then we may get something done

Thanks Suze
and the rest
From Dave
.

Firstly, I work with people who come from other countries, and when compared to those other countries, Australia is a very safe place.

Suzi, is right about violence, in that men are more at risk from injury from another male, however this article was about male victims of domestic violence.

Sadly by pigeon holing violence, it ignores the overall picture, and that is one, that I agree with Suzi on and that is all violence, regardless of gender is not acceptable.

This is why a much broader approach should be made, in order to reduce the level of violence in our society.

So now it seems we have reached the consensus that no level of violence is acceptable. Great. What do we do about it?

These are a few of my ideas.

Alcohol is undoubtable a major factor. Unfortunately in our courts lawyers are often guilty of using alcohol/drug addiction as a mitigating circumstance. This has to stop, not just in cases of violence, but in all crime. To give an alcoholic a lighter sentence because he/she was drunk at the time is to reward the alcoholic for being alcoholic.

I think that removing alcohol/drug addiction as an excuse for unacceptable behaviour would go a long way in reducing all levels of violence in all areas of our society. If a male or female faces our courts on any charge treat them equally.

In many ways our 'no fault' divorce has backfired on us. It often means that children are left with alcoholic/violent women because the only recourse for a man to preserve his sanity/safety is to leave. Let's not go back to the days of private investigators with cameras, but where there are children involved lets have full disclosure of all factors for the sake of the children. The dogma that the mother is the natural parent must go where there are other factors involved. It may be that all things being equal the mother is the natural parent but we are not talking about all things being equal.

It may not have been the intent of our lawmakers to create inequality of law in our society, and it may be just that in trying to right some undoubted wrongs against women they simply overshoot the target. Laws are not meant to be rigid forever and ever amen, but evolutionary to reflect the changing awareness of our society.

Education? Educate children equally that violence in our society is not acceptable and to treat everyone, regardless of gender, race, creed or colour with equal respect. Video games? Where do we start with that one?

Daviy, dwg, Aka, i hear what you are saying. In a perfect world we could drop, the "blame game", gender politics, etc, & have a sensible discussion about solutions to these problems. Believe it or not many men in men's groups have been doing just that, for years & finding, fast, easy, ways to solve ALL of these social problems, BUT we don't live in a perfect world. Our opponents in the women's movement are NOT nice, normal, moderate, reasonable women, they are radical, extremists, more dangerous, to your children, than any Muslim or Denis Ferguson. They have extensive academic reputations, billions of dollars in taxpayer funds, hundreds of thousands of "jobs for the girls", which they see, as being on the line, which they are going to fight for, no matter what. As far as they are concerned, if your children, any children, become "collateral damage" in the gender wars, then so be it.

suzeonline, nor any others, did NOT admit that DV has a 50/50 split or anything remotely like that, only that female violence, IF, it exists, should also be condemned.

The purest, stone cold evil, form of devil worship is femanazism. You cannot reason or bargain with these evil demons. I & thousands before me have tried being nice & it gets your children nowhere. Join "Family First" and when voting, direct your preferences against the loony, left, man hating, red/green, labour, coalition. Join the "promise keepers", "dads4kids" and go to church every week, at many churches, especially Hillsong, you will find women who have rejected femanazism, but do not under any circumstances, get married again, or even engaged, until your partner is willing to march in the streets with you and campaign for family law reform.

crikey formersnagarama,

One extreme to the other. So what everyone joins some wierded out church and women behave? Is that it? So the only difference between you and the white ribbon wearing muslim supporters is the flavour of the religion?

Noooooo. So not going there.

Formersnag.

It has to be that easy. If it is not it becomes a power struggle. Who can say that femananazi is any worse than hillsongananazi, cathonanazis, buddananazis, athienanazis or any other form of radical 'nazis' you may care to make up.

As soon as the issue becomes polarised no solution is possible.

The separation of church and state is for a very good reason. No religion should have power over another. Maybe we could all join Howard and Costello at the Breakfast Meetings. Maybe we could all join Opus Dai. Did I hear you complaining about women with a higher education? Shame. They should be burnt at the stake.

Domestic violence has to be seen as a problem for everyone. If the feminist want to campaign to stop the mutilation of girls ( and many other issues) for religious/cultural reasons they have my support. That is domestic violence every bit as much as man hitting woman or woman hitting man. It I impossible to want to end one form of domestic violence with being inclusive of all. These things are above religion or culture. They are about humanity.

The reason why the solution to any problem has to be inclusive is because even if a solution is the best possible solution it cannot last unless it is freely chosen.

Formersnag, your last post came as a complete surprise to me. You made all sorts of comments about the 'radical' views of suzyonline and others and out of nowhere comes a post that makes suzyonline's comments look positively middle of the road.

Vote Family First, go to church and demonise those who have different views? Is that it? Is that all you have to offer?

You have just joined those I consider have no relevance in a debate of this type because you can only cause division when real solutions require working together.

Just when I thought there was hope here up comes the same old rubbish.

Formersnag, sorry old boy, but you are a lost cause in this debate. Someone as bitter about women as you will never change. Even your chat about the wonders of your mad religions contained venom about women.

For the record 'Neversnag', I never even hinted that I believed that women perpetrated 50% of domestic violence, because that statement is just a load of c##p!
It is just the sort of thing you would say to rev up the crowd- ...violence is violence, NO MATTER WHO DOES IT.

Thanks for everyone else's encouraging words (even Anticeptic- I think..:).

I agree with Davy in that alcohol is definitely a major precursor to domestic violence. I don't remember dealing with very many domestic violence victims who were injured by sober people.

The current measures being directed at some Aboriginal communities where alcohol has been restricted appeared to have worked well.
Maybe this would also work in the wider community?
It would certainly be hard to police though.

Suzie and other spot on about formersnag.

I don't think that you should have to agree with the 50% thing but before you write it off work out what definition you plan to use for domestic violence. If your definition involves using physical force against a partner and you don't want to assume that men lie lot's more than women do take some time and look at a wider range of stats.

Women do get hurt more because of the physical strength disparity. Studies which ask about assault and ask both men and women without building in assumptions about gender have for a long time indicated similar rates of physical violence in DV situations by both men and women. Critics will point out that the CTS scale which much of that work is based on has lot's of flaws (which it did in the early days) but go very silent when called to debate that. Those same critics seem to have little concern with the flaws introduced into their prefered studies by community attitudes and perceptions of DV, the places they collect data (women's refuges won't tend to give a balanced view of violence against men nor will other services set up and advertised to help women).

If when you talk about DV you mean a choice to initiate physical conflict then the 50% figure is close to the mark, if you are talking about serious injury then it's a different story.

As you and others have already pointed out there are a wide range of other factors at play and social disadvantage is a term which cover a lot of them.

If by DV you mean the range of behaviours listed on the back of buses and in anti-DV campaigns (checking a partners phone messages and numbers called, controlling access to money, controlling access to friends, putting them down etc) then there does not seem to be much serious work at all. I suspect that most findings in that space are based on the assertion that men are more controlling than women.

R0bert

Well with one exception we seem to be reaching a little bit of concensus here, at least more than i have seen before in my short time on this forum. Perhaps its the christmas spirit. Lets not waste it.
SUZI. As robert has pointed out there are many different types of DV. This has been stated by many womens groups and while physical violence is the most stark and visible aspect of it, in many ways it is only the tip of the iceberg. While it must be said that more men than women commit actual physical violence, women are just as bad as men at committing emotional violence which often leaves scars which last a lifetime,and i suppose i and my daughter are two victims of such abuse which was perpetrated by my ex and completely ignored by a system which she used to her full advantage.
Both men and women have some real horror stories to tell and unfortunately it is our individual experiences which always seem to polarise these discussions. Would be nice if we could rid ouselves of the more extreme views on both sides and work together to address these problems of child abuse and DV.

You may say i'm a dreamer, but i'm not the only one.
John Lennon.

Just a short question. As the target of many knife attacks that never succeeded does that mean I was not a victim of domestic violence because I am not dead? And If my alky ex wife had killed me would she have been able to shed a few tears, tell BS stories about being abused and get away with murder?

Formersnag,
Your a Dic/head,
"suzeonline, nor any others, did NOT admit that DV has a 50/50 split or anything remotely like that, only that female violence, IF, it exists, should also be condemned."

The expression 50/50 has nothing what so ever to do with stats it is an expression of agreement concedeing that all violence must go

That is what Suze gave us by acknowledging all violence must stop and that alcohol was a big contributer
No wonder we can't get women to unite with men on a common front to stop all violence.
Suze I hope that you understood the meaning of the expression and still want to support a united front against all violence. The men are not going to be able to make this journey on their own and by confronting all violence it can only lead to a better world for the kids
Alcohol seems to be the big common element in all this violence and seems like a good place to start the fight

Thanks from
Dave

Actually dwg,

The Aust Bureau of Stats, personal safety survey released in late 2006 puts the figure of intimate partner violece at Male = 54% and Female = 46%.
It is so close to 50/50, that it's not funny.
But hey, at the end of the day, percentages and who did what are not the issue. We need to stop the violence and deal with it appropriately and have it 100% non-gender focussed.

But just to change the subject a little, I would like to draw your attention to something else that makes the topic we are discussing pale into insignificance.
Please Google Lord Christopher Monckton and read about what is going to happen by the end of this year. I have also included a link to a radio interview between Alan Jones and Lord Monckton that was about this same topic.

We need to be doing all we can to force Rudd to not sign the Copenhagen treaty otherwise we will have a whole lot more to worry about than issues to do with DV and family law.

http://2gb.com.au/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=4998

You can delete this, you can call me a freak or what ever you like, but the sheer truth in this, is that it IS about to happen and if we do nothing, then when our freedom is gone for good, all you who did nothing will rue the day you made that decision.

Paw - I've just read the Safety Survey released Aug 2006 and I don't see how you derived the figures you've posted.
There was this on p.9 :

In the 12 months prior to the survey period, 10% (779,800) of men and 4.7% (363,000) of women experienced physical violence.

An estimated 35% (5,275,400) of men and women have experienced physical assault since the age of 15.

The overall experiences of physical assault for men and women, in the 12 month period prior to the survey were different.

- Of those men who were physically assaulted, 65% (316,700) were physically assaulted by a male stranger compared to 15% (35,500) of women who were physically assaulted by a male stranger.

- Of those women who were physically assaulted, 31% (73,800) were physically assaulted by a current and/or previous partner compared to 4.4% (21,200) of men who were physically assaulted by a current and/or previous partner.

http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/056A404DAA576AE6CA2571D00080E985/$File/49060_2005%20%28reissue%29.pdf

I want to understand how you arrived at the figures you quoted.

In any case, I'd have thought that concerns about men's safety would refer to the numbers of men assaulted and killed by friends, acquaintances and strangers, which is much higher and lethal than any assaults by female perpetrators.

Can everyone stop dragging this all back to gender?

The CHILDREN are the concern for us so-called adults, now violence is occurring at an ever increasing rate, and it needs to stop.

Now alcohol is definitely a major contributor, but The Missus on the other thread pointed out that there is some correlation between sugar at a young age and alcohol in later years, That could be a reallity as the indigenous suffer from sugar problems and also have major trouble with alcohol.

Now at our mens group that I go to every Thursday we had two visitors that came to the group and one was saying how in one of the Indigenous communities since becoming a "dry" community they have begun removing security fences and replacing them with the picket fences and how violence has virtually ceased, then why cant this be implimented across all communities?

If pubs were made close and grog was kept from these communities then that would at least make people take notice in communities that have high violence rates.

Can we all start to find answers to this ever increasing violence?
Can we all search for causes for all this violence?
Is it Depression, Frustation, Poverty, Government Mental and Psychological Torture, Break Down of the Family Unit, Inequity and Inequality?
All I know that we all need to come together for the betterment of society for the CHILDREN

Thanks from
Dave

Dave,

IMO:

While alcohol and other things - drugs; depression and whatnot seem to be factors in reducing inhibitions and making for poorer decision making, the one socio-cultural factor across mainstream society is that violence is valued.

We have some sort of acceptance that aggression and exploitation brings rewards, and for some people in society it seems to work in their favour. Bullies seem to do ok - in business, politics, industry and workplaces. Trouble is that it is like dominos - it ripples down from the most dominant (wealthy; powerful) to the least able to compete in terms of aggression (women and men lower down on the ladder; children).

IMO we have to ensure safety for those least able to secure it; but we need to also stop as a society rewarding exploitation; admiring people who are just bullies and so on - like opposing pornography; reducing consumerism; watching pollies and assessing on citizenship and character to whatever extent we can.

As to your suggestions - it's good to see some! - I reckon that if some smaller communities can give up the grog and that seems to be helping; then we can all do the same. Can't hurt.
I am no wowser but I would support any campaign to reduce alcohol use. Wish we could reduce drug use too.

pynchme:"violence is valued."

Rubbish. Certain types of violence, such as warfare, some sports, policing are regarded as desirable for the state to support, but violence within the general populace is neither valued nor encouraged. Violence perpetrated by women against men is perhaps the one exception: it is implicitly condoned as long as violence is treated in the genderised way that has evolved thanks to Feminism.

Furthermore, the conctant broadening of definitions in the pursuit of easier ways of justifying funding has meant that normal human behaviours, especially those normally associated with masculinity, are now categorised as "violent", meaning that normal men can be portrayed as somehow aberrant simply for obeying the dictates of the genetic heritage. Of course, no feminine traits are ever protrayed that way - even to think such a thing is "violence" or "misogynist" or one of the thousand other pejoratives that mean "I'm protecting my meal ticket".

As The Missus said elsewhere, the politics of fear is easy.

pynchme:"opposing pornography;"

On what grounds? That wowserish Dreary Dowagers feel uncomfortable? Here's a link that might allay your fear of all those porn-crazed men:
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26439873-23272,00.html

The study contained 20 participants, so I realise it's a little more rigorous than the stuff you usually prefer.

Sometimes I despair.

There are large problems with research, especially when is comes to DV.

One particular method, was only to collect data for female victims, and not to include data on male victims. So advocates can then say things like, "there are no male victims of DV."

Another problem is the supposition that men are perpetrators and women are victims, this gets re-inforced by the types of questions asked, where men and women are being researched, but different questions are asked of each gender.

Everytime I read the word violence, my mind thinks of physical violence, and not the expanded feminist definition.

DV advocates relie on this trick of perception. They can truthfully say that women are more at risk of being injured or murdered than men.

They then fall back onto the 1 in 3 research, but the truth is that the vast majority of DV vicitms identified under the expanded feminist definition, are never at risk of physical violence and much less of being murdered.

Feminist push the idea that DV is about power and control, and is repetitive, yet the research data includes one off incidences of violence.

So it all becomes rather murky, and clouded. Men and women are rarely asked the same questions, by researchers which makes the following study unique.

"Synopsis of "Women emerge as aggressors" in Alberta study."

http://www.equaljustice.ca/cgi-bin/forum.cgi/noframes/read/9005

I must apologise for an error in my last post.
I stated that the DV split was 54%/46% and was established in the Aust Bureau of Stats 2005 survey.
This is incorrect.
The study I was trying to refer to, and of which I unfortunately cannot find a link to or have a copy of, was done by either Edith Cowan or another Uni in NSW.
Anyway, although without the proof my statement is on hearsay, but nonetheless it is true.

Pinchme,the % mix mentioned above is only referring to perps, those who have actually struck out. It is not referring to victims.

JamesH, I agree with you about surveys and statistics. It is rare indeed to find a study that has been done completely without bias between the two genders.
Most of the information and stats that end up on govt ministers desks, comes from women's refuges and the organisations that run them.
These are loaded with seething radical harridans who loath males of all kinds and will lie to prove their points and to make sure they keep up their income.

These are the lowlife feminists Erin Pizzey refers to who hyjacked the VERY WORTHY cause she herself had instituted in opening the first refuge for truly abused women. This woman is a true saviour for those real victims of violence.

Daviy/DWG, I also agree that we should be trying to move ahead from the gender debate and start suggesting ways to adress the alleged growing cases of violence.

I have on two previous occasions in this same thread, suggested scrapping all DV laws and programs (because they are corrupt) and fortifying common assault laws, where all allagations of assault either in the home/family or not, are properly investigated by police, charges laid, appearance in court infront of a jury and then hefty punishment.
I also suggested the same including hefty punishment for false allegers.
So far, not one person has commented on this idea, one way or the other.
Why is that?

Paw, I would put it to you that a false allegation of DV is actually DV in itself.

James H,

I completely agree, which is why I state that false allegations must be treated the same as an alleged assault and if found guilty, the punishment must be the exact same as it would be for a person convicted of assault.

And if this involves gaol time, then that must be the case too.
After all, this is the intention of the liar who has falsely reported assault/abuse. They are trying to get you out of the way and in prison.
This, over the last 35 years, has proven to be one of the most heinous forms of abuse against men at the hands of vicious women, who seek to use the law as a tool in the pursuit of their victim ex husband.

And of course for the women in this blog who will now pounce on my post, you cannot argue this point, because it is widely known that women use DV and restraining orders, to get the upper hand in the family court.
This is the sole reason why DV and restraining orders exist.

We have to ask ourselves, why is it that true victims of DV and their families, all state that restraining orders are not worth the paper they are written on?
Because they were not intended to protect anyone at all. They were only intended to be used by corrupt women, and family court officials to get the upper hand in court and to make money.

If the govt were serious about violence within the home, they would be making it a criminal offence and they would make sure the perps are properly punished to be seen as a deterant to others.

Because the vast majority of AVOs are from false allegations, the police and all other services, don't treat them seriously out in the street, which is why women or true victims often end up in hospital or dead.
This must change!

Paw wrote:

"And of course for the women in this blog who will now pounce on my post, you cannot argue this point, because it is widely known that women use DV and restraining orders, to get the upper hand in the family court.
This is the sole reason why DV and restraining orders exist."

Absolute rubbish! DV and restraining orders are one way that society has to warn those who are violent that their violence must cease. It is unfortunate that they are such a flawed instrument for that purpose, but are better than some other alternatives, such as the Tasmanian experiment in dealing with domestic violence.

My major problem with Domestic Violence Orders is how infrequently they are used to protect men and children.

This was left on my answering machine,

Quote "Dave, You want to start packing your own stuff up cause your going in for a long time and it's guaranteed, so a lot of things have happened since I've been away from you, and get your old m/ll into my yard and I'll tell you now,like I told the coppers this "arvo" I'll cut her throat and I'll cut yours and if she wants to do me I'll cut the kids throat too and I've told you that,so you go back and tell your old m/ll, right now, so ring her up and tell her, to ring me on my mobile cause I'm waiting OK so youse die and I've got the biggest backers that you have ever f/cking seen, David Grayson don't meen sh/t in this valley and your old f/cking wh/re that's trying to f/cking bung on that she's something and you you piece of sh/t you'll die for this", as said on the machine(FACT).
I am accused of an affair with a woman that was sleeping at the ex's boyfriend's place if any doubt this ring 0421 949 734 and I will play it for you
Thanks from
Dave

Paw, I agree with you in respect of the penalties that should apply if false allegations are made, especially in the context of family law. It may hearten you to know that the Chief Justice of the Family court, Diana Bryant, has also noted the high rate of violence allegations in her Court and the fact that they rarely end up making an impact on final orders sought. She has called for a review of the procedures so that if violence is alleged, then it must be examined by the court. She's so far stopped short of calling for penalties for false accusers, but at least the Court is trying,I think.

The wider problem with DVOs is that the definition of violence is so broad. A woman can go to police and say "he yelled at me, I'm scared" and he gets a vist from the cops to hand him an order that says he can't go within 100 meters of her. She can, with impunity, than show that order to schoolteachers, mutual friends, church officials, employers, whoever she likes to "prove" that she's a victim in need of their protection and he's a terrible violent bully. No actual violence of any kind need have occurred for his reputation to be smeared and there's not a thing he can do about it. She can even claim she's "scared for the children" and have them joined to it, meaning he can't go near them, all without any testing of her claims in a Court.

As you say, that devalues the instrument, possibly leading to genuine victims receiving less attention than they deserve.

dougthebear:"DV and restraining orders are one way that society has to warn those who are violent that their violence must cease."

Certainly if they were used exclusively for violence I'd support them. As it stands, they're too easily used for vindictive purposes.

Dave I don't understand the circumstances and all but that's awful; nobody should be threatened like that. It's especially worrying re: safety of a child.

I hope you've had the coppers around to hear it so that they can act to ensure everyone's safety; the child's especially.

Also try not to lose the recording and have a couple of people come in; listen to it and sign your typed transcript, which may prove to be useful evidence later.

Dave. Are you certain that was not my ex-wife the wrong number? Take it to the Police. Apply for a restraining order. Every time abuse like this can be documented is a step closer to equality. To the radical feminists out there, you use 'equality' a lot so let's see if you really have a basic commitment to equality or whether it is just convenient to have men to blame for all your problems.
One of the factors that skew the figures on domestic violence is the tactics employed by some women of violently abusing a man until he fights back. From that point man is the abuser. It is impossible to know how many male 'abusers' have fallen into this trap.
For male victims it is hard to push the legal side but it is essential we do. Go to the Police and the courts and when instead of being just the occasional loony there are thousands of men making complaints it will be impossible to ignore.
Maybe we could look at the way the feminists have done it. If you want to be heard make a lot of noise.

Daviy,

You do realize that I'm a feminist and I suggested that Dave both contact the police and that he secure evidence of the call.

You do also realize that the threats to him seem to be from another bloke (or am I mistaken Dave?).

How is the nasty call Dave has had, any sort of responsibility of a feminist or other woman ?

Dave and anyone else who is under threat of harm are entitled to seek protection under a DVO.

Pynchme.
There is a world of difference between getting a DVO and the police actually acting on it. I had to get a restraining order out on the ex because of her behaviour,[ i would point out that i did this AFTER i got custody so it can't be construed as doing it to get leverage in the court], and i did it more to protect my daughter than myself. I had to beg and plead for one, yet when the ex came round and put a painted concrete statue through my car windscreen, the police did nothing. When i suggested that they take fingerprints to identify the culprit they just drove off and did nothing. I would venture to suggest however that it would have been subjected to the most intense scrutiny if it had been heaved through the window of the local police station. Later she came round making death threats to me in front of our daughter, things like "i'm gonna fu@#$ng kill you, you're fu@#$ng dead meat etc" this was witnessed by my neighbour across the road, and she is a JP, sherrifs officer in the local court, and former acting magistrate yet again the police did nothing, I have heard of men even in my own town being arrested for far less than this. Go figure. Even when i was going for custody, the court put several orders on the ex to protect our daughters welfare while she was in her care, yet even though she broke them all, and this was PROVEN in court, the court did nothing even though my daughters very life was placed at risk. Even the police, who, when they found my then 6yo daughter was abandoned alone at home at 4.00am one morning for the umpteenth time, in breach of court orders just drove off and left her there, in clear breach of the child protection act in my state.

Two men of my acquaintance have been victims of women who decided that they wanted out.

These women were granted restraining orders on the flimsiest of evidence. Both women leveled extremely serious allegations at their respective partners, who subsequently had their access blocked to their children and property - on hearsay!

In both cases after their day in court, both men were exonerated and in one case was awarded custody of his children.

Both of these women moved on and inflicted identical treatment on their subsequent partners.

It is such a shame that women like this abuse the system which is provided to help women who are genuinely threatened.

Pynchme,
No, not from another bloke it is from the ex a woman
All Others
Yes there are several copies made and that is only one of many messages that she left and a month after that she was leaving messages that her blood pressure was up, could she see me, her parents wont let her see our son etc etc and came back to the house and started the fights again

Nobody wanted to do anything about it because her boyfriend was fighting to get custody of his kids and it would not be very good for him to have to admit that this is the woman that he was then seeing and still is and was schemeing with her to take the house that we bought(I thought) for our son

Nine years I put up with all this type of garbage while she used the argument that she was staying in the relationship for our son
It was me that stayed with her putting up with her affairs, fights and arguments because I made a promise to our son to bring him home to mum and dad

I still say though that she could have been a good mother and wife if they had only let us have our son and kept the drug addicts and drunks from her
Any way running out of space the offer still stands if any one wants to know more graysond49@yahoo.com
Thanks All
From Dave
PS this is not an example for any to judge all women by there are many good women out there as to many good blokes

Poirot.I agree entirely. The bad women like this who abuse the system make it bad for the women who are genuinely at risk. The same is true that the actions of some men also make it look bad for for the majority when it comes to DV or child abuse. Unfortunately, while men are usually portrayed as being nasty or violent in these cases and bear the full force of the law, when a women for arguments sake kills her own child it is seen a a "cry for help" or due to a mental condition. If a man kills his child no account seems to be taken of HIS mental condition, even though he might have had his children summarily removed from his life.
Pynchme.
Why do you assume that daves message comes from another male when its says "a lot of things have happened since ive been away from you". Should be a dead give away that it was sent by his ex,[ but maybe i'm wrong]. And that is the problem, many feminists will automatically assume that it was sent by a male because in many cases they refuse to acknowledge that women can be just as nasty. As regards DV, it is not at all uncommon for a female to get a male family member or male friend to inflict violence on a partner/ex partner. This is not seen as DV despite the fact that it was the women who perpetrated it, and cases like that obviously skew the DV statistics as they are seen as male-male violence.

I have been collecting incidences of women’s violence for are about 20 years. Why would I be bothered to do that? I went for help once, because my new girl friend had a problem. Her husband had been violent towards her & no one was going to push her around again. Consequently any partner copped it first before he could dish it out to her.

I approached the anti violence desk at the kiosk in the City & asked for help. They told me that it was great to see a man come for help with his violence. When I explained that it was my girlfriend that was the violent one they reacted violently against me. They said, "Women are never violent, only men are violent." I explained the situation but they said, "If I was being nice to her it was only to gain her confidence. Then I would try to control her." They call the security & had me removed.

I then started to do some research. As you can imagine it was hard back then. No computers. I came across a number of articles on the subject of women’s violence in various publications. One at work in a playboy mag of all things. The article was on a study started at Monash. (In the early 70's) The researchers got funding, did the initial research & published a preliminary finding. In order to get funding to continue the study. Apparently the study was a little too successful as they found, to that point, that about 12.5% of men had suffered physical violence at the hands of women. They wanted to continue the study to include mental & other forms of violence. The women’s Lobby groups reacted violently & demanded that their funding be rescinded. It was. The reason was that if money was thrown away on this type of research then there would be less money for women’s studies. I've tried to find a reference to the study but it has eluded me. >>>

Why are men said to want to control & to take the power away from women? The answer lies in the very first women’s conference in Rio. The women were dived up into groups to research different aspect of women’s issues. One group, a group of rabid feminists studied rape. They obtained court records & read through them. One common theme was the question of Control & Power. In the Court records they noticed that when the women were asked how they felt while they were being raped they answered. "I felt powerless"; "I had no control over what was happening to me." Now at this point I would like you to notice the word "I" This group reported back to the main body with the assertion that, "Men wanted to take away a women’s Power & Men wanted to Control women" Now I want you to notice the word "Men." Do you notice a difference in the study & the finding? The Main body also recognised the difference & rejected their study. And that's when the fight started. If are old enough to remember about 8000 women got into a brawl in the auditorium. The Police were called & the Conference was called off & they were rejected from the Country. Just about every woman’s Conference since then has ended in a ding dong brawl. One of the most noticeable was the one in China. My wife’s friend attended & she was most pissed off with being bundled into a plane & forced to leave the Country at short notice. Also a rabid feminist.

I helped this women with her uni studies. I noticed that ALL the course work intimated that only men were violent. Her work experience was done at "Women’s Shelters." Full of battered wives. All her Course mates were ex battered wives. Her only friends were ex battered wives. This re-enforces the Idea that "All men are violent." >>>

Posted by Pynchme, Sunday, 6 December 2009 11:08:27 AM,

Being a so called feminist, you would know that women are protected & supported by the police & government policy is to drive men into the position of submission, whether they are guilty or not. So to argue that Dave (DWG) can resort to the law & knowing his position personally, after reviewing all the evidence, you are speaking garbage again. As usual. It is common as a gutter tramp for you to speak this garbage, as your statements on white ribbon day expose you.

Pynchme, I am amazed you choose to take these bitter men on.
No one on these posts has ever said women can't be violent that I can recall.

Most of the men in the current discussion have apparently been victims of domestic violence, and thus are biased against women. Yet they say that feminazis are biased in their thinking that all men are violent.
What is the difference between these two radical groups? Not much.

There are plenty of good women and men in the world guys.
Domestic violence restraining orders are there for a reason. If you guys think that they are there purely for women to get even with their ex-partners, then you can't have any empathy at all for the very many genuine women and men out there who are true victims of violence in their homes.

What would you guys suggest we have instead? You would most likely prefer to go back to the 'good old days' when the man was the head of the household, he owned all people and things in that house, and he made sure none of the occupants ever got away, no matter how he treated them.

Clearly, women should remain in abusive relationships and never fight back. They should learn to please their men better, so that violent arguments don't occur. Such is the order of Nature, at least according St Warwick and his acolytes.

I acknowledge that some of the sad men here have apparently had bad and/or violent experiences with women, but I think they'd do themselves and the world a favour if they'd act like men and get over them.

The facts are that men beat each other up and kill each other and women up at a very much higher rate than women beat anybody up or kill them, and lame campaigns like this "One in Three" bulldust only act to deflect attention from that essential truth about violence in our society. In fact, I think it's their explicit purpose.

An example of bias research is the WSS. The only questions asked were the ones that showed women as victims, not one single question was asked about if the women in the survey had committed DV.

Some useful questions, might have been;

Have you withheld sex to punish your partner?

Have you falsely accused someone of sexual assault?

However I fully suspect the researcher who was game enough to ask these questions, would have a very limited life span.

CJ Morgan,
"Clearly, women should remain in abusive relationships and never fight back."
and
"campaigns like this "One in Three" bulldust only act to deflect attention from that essential truth"
THE ESSENTIAL TRUTH
I was the one that put up with a WOMAN that was abusive because I promised our son to bring him home to mum and dad,that WOMAN did nothing to stop the abuse of our Son, while the amphetamine dealers and users just kept pumping their drugs through her, treating her as a wh@rE, while my son suffered, CRYING FOR HIS PARENTS UNTIL HE MADE HIMSELF PHYSICALLY SICK but I note that you have never spoken out on the abuse of my son, Are you more interested in the women that abuse children than the CHILDREN themselves?

Suzeonline,
"Pynchme, I am amazed you choose to take these bitter men on."
and
"Domestic violence restraining orders are there for a reason. If you guys think that they are there purely for women to get even with their ex-partners,"
Suze, DV orders, read of my last two posts,The ex threatened me but had a DVO placed on me because I am supposed to have rang her
Pynchme
"You do also realize that the threats to him seem to be from another bloke (or am I mistaken Dave?)."
I cannot in any way see how you came to that conclusion, and yes, you were mistaken big time it was from a woman

Posted by dwg, Sunday, 6 December 2009 12:31:08 AM

"and I'll tell you now,like I told the coppers this "arvo" I'll cut her throat and I'll cut yours and if she wants to do me I'll cut the kids throat too"

Posted by dwg, Sunday, 6 December 2009 12:43:49 PM

"PS this is not an example for any to judge all women by there are many good women out there as to many good blokes"

Ring 0421 949 734 I'll play the message (to privatise your number dial 19883 first)

thanks from
Dave

Hi Pynchme

There are feminists and there are Feminists. I have worked closely with real feminists in the area of addictions (that always spills over into domestic violence) and have always received their support and caring. In the early days when I first looked at my situation realistically my feminist friends gave the support and encouragement I needed to get through a point where I was verging on suicide .
Men are just at the beginning of this journey and feminist could be of great assistance because there are so many place women have gone before that are new to men. We need you help and in return perhaps women could learn that not all men are barsterds.
The problem is that there are many 'man haters' who use men as the excuse for everything wrong with their lives. They masquerade as feminists when they are really something totally different. One such woman (with apologise to all the real women) raves on none stop about here supposed feminist ideals when she is divorced because she could not stop drinking and beating up on her then husband.
Can we put aside the radicals of both genders.
Would you like to go back to the good old days? You education shows in your post so you can see this is just the old 'justifier' form of augment. You invent a clearly inferior position to your own and present it as the only alternative to your own.
Suzeonline
Bitter or battered?
If there is going to be a fight with those who like to call themselves feminists over men getting heard in the debate the fight will come from the feminists. The radical views of one male in this debate need to go in the dumper along with radical feminism.
Dave is not alone with his inability to get heard. Nobody listens to male victims of Domestic Violence. That is the essence of this debate. Everything else is just static. Firstly, right now, we want to be heard without anyone of either gender negating what we have to say.

Daviy said, "Dave is not alone with his inability to get heard. Nobody listens to male victims of Domestic Violence. That is the essence of this debate. Everything else is just static. Firstly, right now, we want to be heard without anyone of either gender negating what we have to say."

Absolutely spot-on Mate!

The article that started this debate and the emotional arguments put forward by most of the men contributing to this discussion, have all been because we are not listened to and nor do are we validated either.

The women who have taken part in this discussion and who have sought to cheapen, demean, further vilify and belittle any of us for the pain we have expressed, are typical of the nasty women who exist in our govt and NGOs that treat men in general with disdain and ignore, when we approach them for help.

Women are equally as violent as men are.

All we ask is that equal funding and respect be afforded us so that we can also live our lives without violence and that if we ask for help for our children because they have been abused by their mother, our children will not be turned away too, just because these agencies refuse to address the behaviour of abusive women.

All you women in this forum who refuse to accept the truth, I don't know how you can sleep at night. You turn every comment back on the men by saying that we are trying to go back to the dark old days, which is such a typical nasty feminist response.
Leave this forum and go find a rock to crawl under. Maybe you can find the same rocks that the women haters live under and you can all suffer the effects of all your toxic waste.

As for the rest of the good men and women here, we would like to have a fruitful discussion about how we can get innocent abused men and their children, the same respect and services that women have enjoyed for the last 3 decades.

Hi all - thought I'd pop back in to see whether light had dawned yet.
1. if in your state victims of crime have to have successfully negotiated the system, lobby to get it changed. we did.
2. Define domestic violence - Australia hasn't yet, but there is a sticking point that fails to comprehend DV as opposed to violence. So listers are posting to cross purposes. Lobby about that - we did.
3. Everyone has a story, and all are relevant. However, continually focusing on your own story and the experiences of one or two others, (all important) but not getting to the issue wastes time.
4. For every awful story of DV, there is a matching one for both genders - which was my 'be careful what you wish for comment'. ie, a woman cannot expect a seamless pathway NO MATTER how vicious the attack. Lobby about that - we did. We lobby for men, women and children. Why don't you?
5. the criminal and family court systems are pathetic for both genders. I'm not going to denate the numbers because 1 is too many. Lobby to get changes - but know the system first.
6. False allegations ought to be punished AS SHOULD false denials. Lobby about that too. we did.

Suzieonline, You refer to me as a bitter man but yet you know nothing about me but let me just enlighten you a bit.

I am a victim of both psychological abuse & domestic abuse but the domestic abuse only began when I separated from my ex partner of twenty years. Her father being an ex cop & our friends circles involved motorcycle gangs, federal & state cops, as well as judges & solicitors. Being a passivist & an Atheist, have never turned to violence in my life & never had a police record or had charges laid on me for anything at all. That was until my ex started psychologically abusing our children to turn them away from their father (me) & that's why they were denounced. They are no longer my children, as I will not negotiate with a terrorist organization. You are nothing more than an extension of that terror organization in my eyes, with the very limited mentality that drives you to support the Catholic pedophile cult behind the policing policies that suppress men for the sake of women molesting children.

Report dispels link between domestic violence and murder

http://www.smh.com.au/national/report-dispels-link-between-domestic-violence-and-murder-20091201-k3y9.html

"IT IS a myth that most domestic murderers are known to authorities, with 74 per cent of them having no contact with police for violent incidents in the year before they kill and 48 per cent no contact for five years prior."

"Even fewer victims - only 10 per cent - were involved in a recorded incident of domestic violence with their eventual killer in the year before their death, a Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research report says."

Clearly something is being missed. It is possible because of the strangle hold on research, research fails to uncover or perhaps avoids trying to uncover facts, that conflict with feminist dogma.

JamesH,

Even though I consider Dr Weatherburn to be a bit of another Dr Phil, or Oprah Winfrey, always looking to play on the Psychology of the non reality & relate it to the reality for the sake of emotional blackmail & psychological suggestion, there is an element of reality in that document that begs the question - what does that tell us about the current legal system's policy & practices that create so much hatred?

If there were equity & equality to the legal system & less use of supporting one to deny the other in order to abuse the children, they wouldn't be needing to come up with other costly schemes to counter balance the pathetic mental illness they have in place now because it's mental illness on the religious government's part that is constantly being portrayed as the antagonized person's fault or guilt. Thus covering up for a failed religious family law program from the 18th century.

Atheistno1,

I certainly commiserate with you, especially over the loss of your children and because you have also suffered at the hands of this rotten father hating system.

However, I do have to disagree with one thing you said, not because it is a big deal, but because it really is not what you think it is.

The family law system we suffer under has nothing to do with the Catholic Church at all. In fact, this same system of family law is a Soviet style family law and was introduced into every western nation on earth during the 1970s, along with the fortification of anti-discrimination laws and positive discrimination to bias women in society, with regard employment etc.

Since that time in every western nation, the feminazis have run riot and the family courts have destroyed literally millions of families worldwide. Fathers and children have been forcibly separated and family fortunes and inheritances have been sacked by the slime. The 'Slime' are all those from judges, lawyers and all other workers who have attached themselves to this family court monster that feeds off the rotting carcasses of death or dying marriages.

These organisations operate outside the laws that are bound by our constitution and most definitely DO NOT operate under 'Common Law'.
The family courts in all western nations operate under Maritime Admiralty Law, which sees the Captain.(judge/magistrate) is both judge and jury and can have someone put in gaol without charge or without standing in court before a jury to fight for his innocence.

This is a very rough outline of what we have in our family court system and the Catholic Church has absolutely no influence over this system whether they like it or not.

From Dave's post: <"get your old m/ll into my yard and I'll tell you now,like I told the coppers this "arvo" I'll cut her throat and I'll cut yours and if she wants to do me I'll cut the kids throat too and I've told you that,so you go back and tell your old m/ll, right now..">

First of all Dave you had said that your old missus was with another bloke or blokes and that your m-in-law (I think) had custody of your son.
Therefore I thought that by "m/ll" you meant either moll (your ex) or mother-in-law (your exs' mother). It was difficult to understand, as I said, but seemed to be someone talking to you about your ex.
The other thing that seemed odd to me was someone referring to their own child as "the kid".

My major concerns were (1) the safety of the child and (2) that you would respond in some way that would get you into more strife since you've already been in the clink for ? aggravated assault of the missus wasn't it?

Concerned for you, I suggested you make sure you keep the evidence and have it dated and witnessed; and that you make sure to report it to the police - for the protection of the child and all concerned.

Apart from taking this as an opportunity for everyone to have a big whinge, has anyone else given you any constructive advice and have you acted to protect yourself as I suggested?

You need to put your evidence together.

If you don't think the coppers are listening (though they are obliged to record any report) go see your local social worker and tell them. Go see your local member if need be; that is, find an advocate fo your choice. If you have a situation where you're reporting to a Probation and Parole Officer, make sure they know.

I just hope you all stay safe.

G'day Suzie :)

I'd actually given up on this thread and was just going to leave it to them to vent their rage amongst themselves, but I saw Dave's phone thing and thought he should be encouraged to act on it to protect himself and his child.

CJ - It's always good to see some sanity introduced into these things.
Imagine being at the mercy of most of these fellows - having them in charge of one's life and being. Scary thought.

Also - the terms feminazi and radical are silly. As one of my lecturers once pointed out to me (and that was a bloke btw) - there is no such thing as a radical feminist. If there were there would be bombings and mass shootings and stuff. "Radical" is walking into a college and blowing a dozen female students away; "radical" is dropping bombs on cities.

Talking about "feminazis" and "radicals" just illustrates an appalling lack of knowledge of what feminism is and complete failure to recognize that if women(feminists) were man-haters, a whole lot of men would have been dead in their beds long ago.

Although these poor blokes can't see it; feminism could be their best ally (if they bothered to meet a feminist and learn about it. I doubt that many/any of these blokes have ever seen one, much less met any)

Pynche me, I must be dreaming, Pynchme shows she actually has a heart.

Thank you for the support that you are providing Dave. I mean it.

Cotter:"we did."

Who's "we"? As I said earlier, trying to speak from authority without making clear the source of that authority merely makes you look rather silly.

Cotter:"Define domestic violence - Australia hasn't yet"

It hasn't? That'll be news to the police, you'd best get in touch right away...

One of the reasons we have a real problem in the West with dealing equitably with violence is that there has been too much "lobbying" by vested interests {"we"). It has lead to a massive distortion of perceptions, so that the really very small amount of genuine violence that occurs has blown up into a huge imagined problem that every woman needs to be scared of, regardless of her own reality. It has become an intrusive, divisive propaganda fest paid for with taxpayer funds, with the definitions broadened to the point that they are effectively meaningless and encompass normal human interactions.

One of the reasons police have embraced such Feminist initiatives as the Duluth model of DV intervention is that it makes their job easier by reducing the level of judgement they have to exercise in complex situations. Much of the Feminist experiment has been about reducing complex situations to "woman good, man can take care of himself" and increasing the level of regulation that we are all subject to.

It's no coincidence that the rise of the Nanny State is concurrent with the ascent of women to positions of authority in great numbers, especially since many if not most of those women owe their positions to their gender rather than their outstanding talent. Anna Bligh, Kristina Keneally, Tanya Plibersek, Carmel Tebbutt, Pru Goward, the list goes on and on of third-rate performers who are "professional feminists" selected over more talented people.

Pynchme:"you've already been in the clink for ? aggravated assault of the missus wasn't it?"

And you claim to be "professional"...

Pynchme.
"like I told the coppers this "arvo" "
The cops were told of this threat before me.
"that your old missus "
Never once referred to my ex as this, always the ex
"Therefore I thought that by "m/ll" you meant either moll (your ex) or mother-in-law (your exs' mother)."
I didn't mean anything the whole message was left by the ex
"you've already been in the clink for ? aggravated assault of the missus wasn't it?"
Never have, the ex tried to get me charged the 16/12/2005, but there was nothing to substaniate her claim so SHE ended up assaulting the cops and was charged with assault police x2
" "the kid"." was a 2year old grandchild of the woman that was staying at the ex's boyfriends place.
"If you don't think the coppers are listening (though they are obliged to record any report) go see your local social worker and tell them. Go see your local member if need be; that is, find an advocate fo your choice"
This has been taken up by my Local Member who sent it to the CMC, who gave it to the Police Ethical Standards Branch who did nothing. My Local Member has persued this and cannot get nothing done.
It was told to me to place it before the Court by the CMC, but the Judge wont let me, it has been given to the Solicitors that were representing me and they wouldn't place it before the Court either.
The reason being is that the ex and her boyfriend were and are in a relationship and he was fighting to get custody of his kids so they could be a happy little family and this would not have been real good in the Family Court for him, if it was raised that this woman that he is having a relationship with, was under the Mental Health, has a child in care, and has made these types of threats, Now would it?
The ex has played on sypathies of people like yourself.
Thanks from
Dave

<<< To continue on from where I left off. Please go back & refresh.

I went to a Baptist Christian Meeting once, the speaker claimed that anyone who didn't spend their life waving their hands about screaming Jesus’ name was a, "drug addict, thief, murdered, fornicaterer, Rapist, etc. He'd spent his entire 50 years working as the Police Chaplin in Kings Cross. He thought that "everybody" was like the people in Kings Cross. I digress. But you can see the same pattern.

One of my diggers in the ARES, I'm & old Vn Vet that did some time in the ARES, was doing the same course as my wife’s friend. He put an ad in the paper for some research subjects. I rang him & explained my situation at the time. I also gave him a lot of other men to get in touch with. Men who had suffered violence, both physical & mental, at the hands of women. He handed in his assignment & was told to withdraw it or he would automatically fail the course. As, "Only men are violent."

As I said before. If anyone is doing a study on Women’s Violence towards men I'd be glad to share 20 or more years of newspaper clippings with you.

I guess what it really boils down to, is that, some people are violent by nature (psycho's), some are are moved to violence by the mental intimidation of others (hitting back). Some are just plain selfish. Only about 12.5% of people fall into these catagories. The rest have to put up with being branded by those 12/5%.

JamesH, thanks for that link. There were a few things worthy of comment.

Firstly, Weatherburn makes the claim that 1/3 of murderers had a history of mental illness then says this "showed domestic homicide was generally not a manifestation of mental illness." Huh? 1/3 of cases are not a signifier? It's a bit like the attitude toward male victims "they're in the minority, so we can ignore them". At present less than 1/4 of road accidents involve an illegal drug yet we have incredibly intrusive roadblcks set up to test for them...

He goes on to say that consumption of alcohol before the crime is more common, but doesn't give any analysis of a possible link between the previously-diagnosed mental illness and alcohol consumption.

Thirdly, he says:"More than three-quarters of offenders were male", referring to intimate partner homicides, but then goes on to talk about how "Child killings were frighteningly high, with 17 per cent of victims less than five years old and one in five killed by their parents." yet doesn't mention that fewer than half of those are killed by their father. I guess that must be another of those "insignificant" large fractions that this subject is so full of.

One very important thing he does mention is:"The number of male and female victims was roughly the same", giving the lie to the sel-serving hysteria from some quarters.

*sigh.

Antiseptic. Who are YOU? This is supposed to be anonymous and will stay that way while ever the lunatic fringe remains narcissistically 'superior' and demanding their ancient entitlements. 'We' are a group of people who for 20 years developed an organisation, volunteered, worked hard to address inequities and idiocies within the systems. 'Do gooders' - prefering that to 'doing bad' or 'doing nothing' or 'inept judging', or 'whinging'.

Australia does not have a consistent DVpolicy. The medical definition is different from the police, the Family Court is different for them both. Different states have different constructs. But you know better?

Your contention that there isn't much reason for women to be afraid because there's not much 'violence' again makes you look - well - naive. There seems to be an assumption that victims recognise what's happening as violence - yet many dont. Bad temper, the other was drunk, drugged - hard to see the life partner as 'a criminal' - zillions of reasons why they dont leave - because they dont get it. (Bit like you)

Jayb - what about people who choose violence as a powerful incentive to ensure others provide their entitlements? Put downs work for a while, then there's a bit of standover, restiricting fair access to shared property, a bit of biff. More biff.

Never had a male client who has been held off the floor by the throat by 'the little woman', but female clients have. Very coersive that - no air - who has the power now - look what i can do.
And in my definition of DV for my service, I include the children who are physically, emotionally, sexually, financially abused - boys, girls, youth, sibling violence, as well as adults, and extended family. Just like is now accepted for 'family violence' by Aboriginal and other services. So you see that while you quibble, and call
us' silly, we simply promote the right to live safely for all. That's what we strive for, because it's right, not 'nanny state'. Silly isn't it!

Cotter: What about people who choose violence as a powerful incentive to ensure others provide their entitlements? Put downs work for a while, then there's a bit of standover, resticting fair access to shared property, a bit of biff. More biff.

I know the type of woman you mean. If they can't biff then they get one of their boyfriends to do it. See Dave for a start. I know a woman in T'ville who married & divorced seven times to well off men. They were left with nothing when she'd finished with them. I do know a few more like that but not with her record. I believe that, now, if a guy went out with a girl 20 years ago she can make a claim on him for his money now. ?fair. See a recent court ruling. I guess that's my 2 posts in 24 hrs. See you then.

With my marriage, my 3rd, our councilor told us that it is the submissive one that will always cop it. If it's a woman they get put down by the man. If it a man then they are considered weak & spineless by the woman. The weak do not inherit the earth. My wife & I have a great marriage now which is the envy of all her friends. They've told her that there'll be a fight on when she dies. So I must be doing something right. ;-)

Cotter
'Never had a male client who has been held off the floor by the throat by 'the little woman'

But how many women clients have you who remove a knife from a alcohol crazed man as a daily occurrence? Or learn how to keep their supposed 'partners' in sight at all times so that they are not hit from behind with a heavy object? Women attacks are sneaky and vicious.

And Pynchme. If you had read my post you would have seen me acknowledge the help and support I have received from real Feminists. And that I have said that men could learn a lot from women.

Radicals are never radicals in their own mind. Nobody seems to understand that sexism is judging a person soley by their gender. The 'Feminists' in this debate seem to do a lot of that. And the general attitude of Australians to domestic vionce is sexist. That is the problem. If all the feminists out there are so squeaky clean why do you have to protest the innocence of all women all the time? Why not just accept that some people are violent and some are not?

I fear this debate has gone too far down the path of them and us to be of any further use to anyone. All that is happening is the quoting and arguing about numbers when nobody knows because there has never been a impartial enquiry into domestic violence.

If this debate rights itself into what can be done about domestic violence I will be happy to continue to contribute, but if the crap of last few pages continues it is Plan B, out of here.

'But how many women clients have you who remove a knife from a alcohol crazed man as a daily occurrence? Or learn how to keep their supposed 'partners' in sight at all times so that they are not hit from behind with a heavy object? Women attacks are sneaky and vicious'.
One of the features of many DV relationships is stalking, keeping track of the other at all time, and are men never sneaky?

Most women I see appear to have been too scared they they'll be killed to tackle the knife, gun, chains, dogs, bats. As you ?were on a daily basis - which demonstrates the different capacity and sense of 'being controlled that can occur. The question always asked of women is 'why didn't you leave? (by the so called experts, police, etc as well as many in the community. I guess your reason are similar and equally complex?

I assume the men who gather together to get help are a bit like the women who gather to get help - it all sounds like a hate fest, and yet they stay and go back. However the men on this post ought to write chapters for the book 'Iknowaman' because an example of one is so convincing in their minds (especially if they are the alleged victim) that it must be 'the norm'.

Jayb - I guess men dont bring in other to do their dirtywork when they can easily do it themselves with great justification. Do you know that men are likely to be murdered by the woman's new partner / old partner, and they inflate the male death figure.

And congratulations on doing better in your third marriage - hope you do better than that gold-digging troll someone else used as the example

Paw,

Thanks for your support. I have to make it clear that I have witnessed many things in my time & the overbearing control of our family law courts by the religious nominations is just a minuscule part & although you say our system is based on communist principle, I won't argue, you may be right, you are with all else that you said but The courts ask one to swear on a bible & to repute the fact they are run by Catholics would only be ignorant for the sake of religion itself. When I did welfare certificate 4 at Tafe, I encountered just how much the Catholics were pulling the strings & abusing the men psychologically & even today, an ex sibling & staunch Catholic has given custody of 3 children to her son because of her influence in the family court.

I would have to say that 30% of the outcry to DV is justified but the other 70% is due to the lack of equity/equality & support for psychological blackmail by the Feminazi's & with the Rudd/Kenealy Catholic Mafia's full blessing & make the real statistics look fake.

Cotter, You are sounding more like my ex wife with every post.
I did leave twenty years ago. But the memories of the abuse lingers and I will did what I can to help anyone of either sex who is suffering abuse. One of the things that led me an understanding of abuse was a small but significant group in my clients who where political lesbians, women who had been in abusive heterosexual relationships and consciously switched to same sex relationships. What was so enlightening about this group was that the issues they were presenting with in their same sex relationships were the same issues as they had with their heterosexual relationships.
As someone who has had so much to do with battered women I am certain you would have come across the same phenomena. People looking from both sides of the fence and seeing the same view is for me compelling evidence that the gender does not matter but the abuse does.
Female perpetrators use weapons, and a man is usually able to disarm her. That does not make the attack any less real and I really would have thought that someone who is as interested and knowledgeable about Domestic Violence as you say you are would have avoided sexualizing the problem.
Or maybe you only know it from one side. It which case it would be better if you stepped aside and stopped interfering with those from both genders who have a real interest in coming to grips as to what is really going on as the beginnings of a way forward to end the problem.

I couldn't have said it any better myself Daviy!

My sentiment's exactly. You've said everything I need to say. Thank you.

Antiseptic and Dave; first of all the term "missus" is mine and not attributed to Dave. Also Antispetic, Dave is not my client and I am posting in my off duty time where it is generally ok to express an opinion in my own lingo.

Secondly, the reason I placed ? <- indicates query. The query was in relation to posts by Dave earlier in this thread:
Posted by dwg, Saturday, 28 November 2009 9:05:09 AM
Posted by dwg, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 6:46:25 AM

At least I have tried to comprehend what he is relating about his situation and personal distress. Thanks James for being able to see that and for acknowledging it.

Regardless of the details; the fact still remains that Dave has been threatened and more worrying in terms of relative powerlessness, so has a child. Dave can choose to do something to protect himself especially against future 'victimization' or he can choose to do nothing.

However, in the overall this is why it's pointless to bother with this thread. You're all so determined to portray men as helpless victims. Which it seems to me to be the reason that Cotter refers to the fact that women in general have got busy; initiated and carried out constructive actions to obtain some measure of protection and justice.

Btw Antiseptic, you often accuse women and especially feminists of being on some "gravy train". The best way to keep people like me in business is to keep doing exactly what you're already doing; because the sexually abused children (male and female) and assault victims just keep on coming.

Pynchme
"Cotter refers to the fact that women in general have got busy; initiated and carried out constructive actions to obtain some measure of protection and justice"

This was done with assistance from men as well, What I and others are asking can we now get assistance from the women to help us men?

We, The men need the women to condemn the women that play on the "poor defenceless woman" show, and make it all out to be mans fault.

As everyone can see by this thread and also the White Ribbon thread, noone will accept that men can break ESPECIALLY when their child/children is/are abused

A mans first priority is the protection of his child/children, but when a man is placed in the position that he cannot defend his child/children, and is placed in that position by way of lies and deception, collusion and corruption, perversion of justice and perjury, What do you think will eventually happen to that mans mind?

By any Government, Organisation, Agency or Person doing this to a mans mind, then by the International AND National and State Laws of this country, This is by the Criminal Definition, TORTURE, of Mental and Psychological torture.

I have NEVER hurt a child and NEVER would, but I just can't stand the people that do, be it male or female, because in my eyes child abusers and molesters do not carry a gender they may as well be a stone

All I am asking is can we get all to unite to stop violence and give our children something better than what we are giving them now?

Thanks All
For your Time
From Dave

Of course women are not capable of voilence against males......

http://www.smh.com.au/national/mother-gets-25-years-for-sons-suitcase-murder-20091209-kits.html