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.