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.