Probably a well beaten topic. 'cuse the pun.

I was watching Judge Judy today (yeah, I know) and two individuals stood up and made idiots of themselves on international tele.....again. The point though, was the guy stated his missus hit him a couple of times with the frying pan in the head. Just like it caused you to smile, a cackle of laughter rippled through the 'court room'.

If SHE had said she was struck in the head with a frying pan no one would be smiling.

Why is this?.

The Holy Bible considers the female as the weaker vessel (1 Peter 3:7).
The law regards it so as well.

I think there is a general expectation that men are rougher and more carnal and want the female sometimes to the detriment of the female.

Dear StG,

Graham Stockdale, MA - presented a paper for the Australian Crime Prevention Council Conference called,
"The Hidden Domestic Violence: Myths and Realities."

It answers your question far better than I ever could:

www.mensrights.com.au/page13z1.htm

Here's a small sampling, and I quote:

"Many will argue that domestic violence is an open-and-shut case, that is, male violence. We hear little else in the media.
I am not so sure that the community accepts the argument that it is
always men who are violent in the home, despite the dominance of
media attention given to women. I know that politicians are falling over themselves in the race to show they are gender aware, but they are politicians after all. My discussions with hundreds of people in the last few years - during my course of study - convince me that
people are much more realistic in their understanding of domestic
violence, women as often as men ..."

Data confirming domestic violence against men is given.

The website may be of interest to you and other posters.

It may change some perceptions.

Yeah, but

To violence against men, Australia says nothing.

I was brought up to never hit a girl, regardless of if she hits first. Men are considered stronger and should be able to handle themselves. I think that is pretty close to the community attitude. Be a man.

You see it in movies. Women throws dishes at the guy and punches and kicks, but the guy stays cool and doesn't react. Women quite often slap men in the face as a response to saying something rude.

Women are brought up to be able to hit men, as they are unlikely to hurt them seriously. They are also told they are free to lose control of their emotions and be histerical.

What they should be told, is not all men are happy to accept violence without retaliating. It would be a safer campaign than telling them, once again, they are the 'special' gender, to be protected no matter what their behaviour. Note men don't hit people bigger than them because they know they may well get hit back. It's all about being responsible for your actions. I could hit Mike Tyson in the face and I'm sure he wouldn't blink, but if he then rearanged my face I would not be surprised and accept I got what I deserved.

But the feminist PC brigade are too scared of this message of personal responsibility, or of accepting that it's quite common in DV that both the man and the woman are violent, it's just the woman is more likely to be injured. It affects the status quo of women as victims to depict domestic violence honestly.

I once had a partner throwing punches at me, and when I grabbed her arms to restrain her, she said she would call the police as that's domestic violence. She was probably right too, if you look at the government adverts. Domestic violence is defined as men hitting women, and it's not going to change any time soon.

Foxy the point Usual Suspect makes is a good one. A lot of people know that women hit men but think thats no real problem.

I had several marriage councellors dismiss my ex's violence making the point that she was smaller than me and unlikely to do serious harm. The message that DV is a male thing is so pervasive that people don't see the problem when it's right in front of them.

I had a different view, an unexpected punch in the wrong place can be incapacitating leaving you open to further injury. I was punched repeatedly once while driving a car (busy traffic and no where to pull over).

I've been posting references to studies which show similar rates of DV between men and women on OLO for several years and the only one who has ever come close to engaging me on the material has been SJF who's response has been to describe the methodology used as discredited (and post some of the criticisms of the methodology). SJF at least has reasons for ignoring those studies.

Others who are generally thoughtful posters and given to evidence based discussion appear unable to overcome the weight of inertia on this issue and actually consider the arguments. Some will conceed that the rate of hitting may be similar and fall back to the level of serious injury stats which do show a gender difference but which are no reflection of the content of DV promotions.

None that I can recall have commented on the apparent link between women hitting men and increased risk of serious injury (I've see some research demonstrating that link but not enough to be highly confident).

If you want an informative read on the the issues around female violence and the way it's portrayed in society get hold of a copy of Patricia Pearson's book "When She Was Bad".

R0bert

The comments made so far are pretty accurate regarding society's perceptions. One Liberal male politician once told a Democrats female politician not to get too upset because she might hit him with her handbag. Of course the House fell into laughter. While it was meant to be a sexist jibe, the perception of women acting violently or inflicting harm is not seen as a 'real' issue.

I would disgree with Usual Suspects dig at PC feminists "acceptance of personal responsibility". I have never seen any feminists on OLO or elsewhere advocating that women are absolved of responsibility if they commit a violent act.

Violence as a rule should not be acceptable in any situation. As one poster said a few months ago denying that serious violence against women occurs (given the number of battered women that turn up in emergency or at shelters) or to diminish the problem to appease the PC males on this forum is offensive.

I have never seen any of these PC male posters offer sympathy or condolences to the issue of battered women, only denial of the extent of the problem. As if somehow diminishing abused women's issues will give weight to the causes of battered men. I don't know the figures on battered men but attitudes like this will only do those men a disservice. The domestic violence problem should be met together in unison not by division or derision.

By contrast, feminist posters on OLO without exception (that I know of) have agreed that women are equally at fault if they use violence to express their anger and argue for more equitable attention for abused men. Feminists certainly don't see themselves as a 'special gender'.

In a way, violence to me, is seen as a 'man's domain'. The fact that we as a society cannot accept women in a combat role kinda backs up my idea of violence being a man's thing. Does that make us more, or less 'enlightened' as a society?.

It seems when men commit horrendous violence (like with the recent axe murders) it's seen as a case of, 'wow, what a sicko'. In situations where a woman may have committed some atrocious act the first question raised is 'what extenuating circumstances caused the incident?'. You'll even see that question raised in the initial report.

I think it starts back at the 'hunter gatherer' set up, and really our attitude towards men and women committing violence hasn't changed since then.

Pelican,

' I have never seen any feminists on OLO or elsewhere advocating that women are absolved of responsibility if they commit a violent act.'

My argument is with the focus of the government's domestic violence campaign. If they were interesting in stopping violence, they would have included some proportion of men being hit by womnen.

By omission, it is inferred this either simply does not happen, or is not a problem. It's obviously not even seen as a problem for women who have contributed to their own environment of violence by hitting first and being injured by the retaliation. It is effectively a statement that women bare no responsibility in violent domestic disputes regardless of the circumstances. Alternitively it is a statement that women never hit their partners.

Just where have I denied violence against women exists or is a problem? Also why should I 'offer sympathy or condolences to the issue of battered women', when the women's lobby group who designed the government's campaign felt no need to acknowledge any male victims of violence, or even accept that women ever contribute to the cycle of violence in the home?

StG,

'...extenuating circumstances caused the incident?'. You'll even see that question raised in the initial report.'

Yeah I see that in the news too. They pre-empt the viewers astonishment that a woman has been 'bad' and look together for a mitigating factor. With men, well, it's just another man acting his gender. The DV ads help to reinforce this prejudice.

Dear RObert,

Thanks for recommending the book,
"When she was Bad," by Patricia Pearson.
I'm going to try to buy it from a book shop,
because I tried accessing my local library's
catalogue on-line - and low and behold they
don't have it. Much to my surprise they don't
have anything on the subject of, "Domestic
violence against men," or "Male abuse,"
or "Violence-against-men."

I think that proves the point this thread is
making.

You may be interested in the following website:

http://dad4justice.blogspot.com/2007/11/australia-do-we-ignore-violence-against.html

Usual suspect, believe it or not I do get the gist of your argument. My reference to 'sympathy' was merely to highlight that we, male and female, are human beings first and foremost and as such a modicum of empathy (if not sympathy) is not too much to ask for any victims of violence regardless of politics.

I suspect that the DV Ads are the result of years of experience with a growing problem of abused women. I imagine that similar campaigns would be mounted if there was a stream of battered men turning up at shelters or emergency wards. While I respect your view that women have to take responsibility for throwing the first punch (if this is the case) I do not accept that a the full force of a person much bigger and stronger uses this as an entitlement to bash a person to within an inch of their life. If you don't believe this happens, spend some time in casualty or in a women's shelter.

It would be the same as a woman wielding a fist to a small child who may have punched her in the leg and then sent that child through a plate glass window.

Lets keep some perspective on this. Lets look at reducing incidence of violence overall and work together rather than in opposition.

Foxy, my pleasure. It is available online but the price is a lot more than I paid http://www.play4me.com.au/product/when_she_was_bad_864866_457249.html

I've seen mixed comments about Pearson's feminist credentials, most of the write up's tout her as a feminist author but those who don't like what she is saying claim that she is not a feminist. Her main focus seemed to be about the impact on women of the denial of female violence or responsibility. That even when female violence is in front of us many seem to hold the woman less responsible for her actions than we would hold a man. She looks at the impacts on the womens movement of this.

Pelican from what I've seen the rates of serious injury run at around two to one (possibly 80/20 depending on who you believe). Women do suffer the majority of serious injury and the vast majority of deaths resulting from DV. I've also seen material (not much of it) which found a link between women hitting men and the likelyhood of women being seriously injured. It did not appear to matter if they initiated the violence or were hitting back, if the findings were valid a woman who hit's a man is much more likely to get seriously injured than one who does not.

It should be noted that serious injury represents only a small portion of the DV covered in government campaigns.

I'm of the view that the best ways to minimise the serious injuries is to reduce the lead up violence. That means stopping all of the DV we can. Hitting can be a means of escalating a conflict for those who want to leave a partner with nowhere to go. Someone who both believes it's OK to hit because of their gender and who knows that the other party is in deep if he responds physically has a lot of power and little to hold them back.

R0bert

Well posted Pelican and Robert.

There is a lot of anger re the ads focussing on female victims. As Pelican points out this is because serious consequences tend to affect women more often than men.

Just like the current campaign, it's run in Qld, about Work Place Health and Safety. It is about coming home alive and in one piece from work. There are a number of stories. All of them, all, depict MEN coming home safely from work. Not one single woman.

This does not mean that a woman never gets injured at work, it just shows the reality that serious injury and death at work affects MEN more often than women. So it is focussed at men.

If we are to be serious in condemning violence than that should also include violence that is perpetrated on children.

Violence against children, men or women, Australia says No.

Hi all

I think these are all excellent, insightful posts about what is essentially a hidden problem. R0bert, what did you do to resolve the situation in the car?

Perhaps it is also an under-reported problem, because the male psyche (forgive me, guys) is to cope with violence by women as best they can. It's not something very many men seem to feel able to talk about, even with their "mates", so actually reporting it would, I suspect, be quite traumatic, given that there would be a certain fear of inappropriate ridicule.

My view would be that no violence is acceptable, be it by a man or a woman. The fact that it is so under-reported could be skewing the statistical data relating to just how prevalent this is.

None of that is to diminish some of the terrible cases that are reported against women, and I guess it's true that in most cases a man would be more powerful than a woman.

Perhaps men need more support groups, and to get past the notion that they cannot communicate these things. It certainly needs more attention from the government than it gets.

Cheers
Nicky

G'day Nicky.

You're right, there is a certain amount silence when it comes to domestic violence instigated by females. I used to work with a guy that had a partner who got physical with him when she got drunk. She'd use objects. He only ever said it once. He copped a lot of stick after that.

I think the system has a lot to answer for as well. There already plenty of help groups around. Although they are really helpful I don't think they'll change the psyche of society about violence towards men by women. I'm really no expert, but from what I've come across with reports of domestic violence the man usually is the one that seems to be 'relocated' until everyone has cooled off. If 'she' is obviously the instigator, or main perpetrator of the violence should she not be the one 'relocated'?.

Does 'the system' back up society's unbalanced view of female violence?.

Just a question.

A female kills a male partner who'd been abusing her for years through serious physical and emotional violence.

A MALE kills a FEMALE partner who'd been abusing him for years through serious physical and emotional violence.

Why do those two statements have such different vibe about them?.

Nicky, I'm not certain just what I did. I think I threatened to stop the car and keep the keys. What I experienced was not the high end violence that leaves people in hospital, the physical risks were low. The emotional risks were not.

I don't see how support groups would have helped me, I didn't so much want someone to talk to, I wanted someone else to get my then wife to stop hitting. Hence my angst with government campaigns that never talk about womens violence. Even if the government thinks men hit ten times as often as men there is still space in those adds to have one of the perpetrators as female and have the message be against all violence.

As for stats being skewed. Reporting is one aspect, the other is that much of the work builds in assumptions about power in the home and works from there. I've quoted regularly from the Qld Health website previously because it's such an extreme example.

"DOMESTIC VIOLENCE is the physical, sexual, emotional or psychological abuse of trust and power between partners in a spousal relationship" http://www.health.qld.gov.au/violence/domestic/default.asp

There is the power part, then you follow with the result "Most (85% to 98%) domestic violence is perpetrated by men against women."

Once you say that men hold almost all the power and define DV in terms of power it's impossible for women to perpetrate DV.

yvonne you might be giving commendations that don't fit. I'm strongly against the heavily genderised nature of the adds. Apart from the harm to male victims (which does not seem to elicit much concern from those who have not been there) I think women get hurt more by the current genderised approach.

Women do get hurt and or killed on the job, they travel to work and those adds should have some women in the not home yet roles.

Spot on with your closing lines ...

"Violence against children, men or women, Australia says No."

R0bert

pelican,

'...woman wielding a fist to a small child who may have punched her in the leg and then sent that child through a plate glass window. '

Now you're getting ridiculous. If this is the general opinion of the difference in strength in men and women, it's no wonder a male victim of DV is humiliated by reporting it. There are also many weapons around the house for a woman to use.

' an entitlement to bash a person to within an inch of their life'
It's not entitlement and I never mentioned entitlement. I think you deliberately misrepresent me. I'm talking about women taking some responsibility for their actions. As Robert says,

'Hitting can be a means of escalating a conflict for those who want to leave a partner with nowhere to go. Someone who both believes it's OK to hit because of their gender and who knows that the other party is in deep if he responds physically has a lot of power and little to hold them back.
'

I would add to that it's a lot of responsibility to put on men that they must defend themselves using just enough force to protect themselves and also not hurt their partner. The current attitudes leaves men defenseless, as women are free to totally lose control of themselves and be violent, while men must control the whole situation for both parties.

Is the population so thick that to discuss DV in any other way than Man=violent abuser, Women=powerless victim somehow gives men an excuse of 'she was asking for it'? Asking women to be involved in the solution to DV is not blaming the victim. Telling women that they sometimes have control over not escalating a dispute into violence would be a good preventative measure.

yvonne,

Good point about the 'Work Place Health and Safety'. Even if less women are injured at work, why not one or two adverts depicting a woman's danger? That's all I expect of the DV adverts. I would be happy with even one out of seven scenarios showing women abusing men.

Hi all

The argument seems to be one of equity, and I suspect that society is, to an extent, so geared towards "men against women" violence because of what must be a massive under-reporting by men who are attacked by women. Yvonne makes the (excellent) opposite point in her workplace danger analogy, of course.

So what do you guys do when you are attacked by a woman? Hit back, or restrain her (if that's possible)? We really need to find a solution to this; in at least one state, legislation was brought in that when a violent dispute erupted, the man was hauled off regardless of who was the instigator, and imprisoned. This had overwhelming results for some of the men who were later acquitted of any blame but by that time, had lost their jobs, their standing in the community, their self-esteem, and the locks had been changed on their homes. It was a really terrible state of affairs.

Maybe it's also that women can be very good at being "victims" and can also be very manipulative, including with the authorities.

I think that if you are attacked physically by a woman (and the power dynamics aren't always one-sided; in some households the woman hold the power if she makes more money, for example, and that can lead to emotional/psychological abuse as well), you must report it. It might balance the scales a little and have the extent of the problem properly recognized.

Cheers
Nicky

Some of the feminist propaganda my partner has received from the early childhood centre (Where she was asked if I hit her and was she scared of me as a routine question) actually explains some of the common dynamics between men and women.

It says women like to see their emotions reflected, and men are more likely to close off in emotional conflict. The more the argument escalates, the more the man closes off, the more hysterical the woman gets.

It basiaclly says men are inferior to woman and can only be violently aggressive or totally withdraw in conflict.

But I can imagine how this could work in domestic disputes. A woman becoming more and more hysterical, and pushing and shoving to try and get some reaction out of a withdrawing man. The dispute escalates until she is throwing things, then maybe slapping and even punching, kicking until the guy finally lashes out, switching to violent agression mode. At this stage he is guilty of domestic violence, and Australia says no to this, while she is a victim and you cant blame the victim, but I've been through that already.

Now if this is a common dynamic (leaving aside the other more one sided dynamic of controlling behaviour), surely it would be prudent to include women in the mix, so they may recognise and change their behaviour as well as men. Why do we always see things in the boundaries of men must change, and men have responsibility for the situation? Or do we really only see domestic violence as violent controlling man attacking scared women?

Nicky, I don't think reporting is a lot of use while public perceptions about DV are as they are. I've not seen stats for Australia but have seen material from the UK which showed that a significant proportion of men who called the police to report a DV incident where arrested (I think around 20% but can't find the material at the moment).

My impression is that police and workers in the family relationships field have been given an especially heavy dose of the DV is something men do indoctrination. I called the police once, not over physical abuse but verbal. It was after we seperated, my ex was in my home being extremely verbally abusive, following me around the home and refusing to leave.

A situation that could easily have escalated. It took almost an hour for them to call back to confirm that they were not required. In the mean time my ex had called the AFP to complain about me not handing over our son to her (it was not the agreed changeover time and I did not want him going with her while she was in that state). They rang back very quickly to find out what was going on.

As I mentioned earlier a number of counsellors made the point that she was smaller than me so her violence was not really an issue.

Reporting without confidence that your report will be treated with respect or impartiality just risks worsening the situation.

We have to change the public portrayal of DV so that it is recognised that DV is not about the gender of the perpetrator it's about violence and needs to be stopped. Until that occurs victims of female violence are between a rock and a hard place.

R0bert

Pelican, I mostly agree with your comments about the opinions of women and men on this topic. However, point out that R0bert is one male poster who doesnt deny the seriousness of the issue for female victims, despite pushing for greater recognition of male victims. I dont think I can recall seeing anything other than a level-headed attitude from him.

US, I actually agree with a lot of what you have said here (ok, pick yourself up now!). However, I dont think that there has been a deliberate attempt from the "feminist brigade" to marginalise the issue of female violence and the problem of relatiatory violence. There is no doubt that this has happened, but instead of being deliberate, I think its been an outcome of trying to ensure that badly abused women particularly those that have been emotionally abused as well, are able to muster enough self-esteem to walk out of a dangerous situation. Catering to the extreme has allowed the middle-ground to get more cloudy. I dont know of an answer to address the problem though, which doesnt put those women at the extreme end in more danger (and I am fairly sure that not even the women-haters that post here from time to time would see that as being a good outcome). I am open to ideas though, about how to address the murky middle-grounds where men may very well be getting unfairly treated, that also ensures the extreme end doesnt end up worse-off.

The problem with the advertising campaigns so far is that they are trying to address childhood indoctrinations (those from abusive backgrounds are likely to repeat such).

Country Gal,

' I think its been an outcome of trying to ensure that badly abused women particularly those that have been emotionally abused as well, are able to muster enough self-esteem to walk out of a dangerous situation. Catering to the extreme has allowed the middle-ground to get more cloudy.'

I can understand your point, and nobody wants women being abused, but I think too much legislation is based on protecting women at ANY cost to men. The definition of DV has been widened from hitting, to pushing, to yelling, to lately not allowing your spouce to use the car or ATM card. With the actions above effectively condoned for women and not men, and the expectation a man has a lot more to lose in custody and his home and CSA in the event of divorce, there is so much scope for men to be abused. It probably greatly contributes to the suicide rate. In a lot of cases women hold all the cards, and also have all the government agencies supporting them and looking for an abusive man in any situation when the opposite might well be the case.

All our laws are based on the framework of protecting women, at any cost to men. They give women the benefit of the doubt, and expect women will not abuse these laws.

The laws are there because some men have abused their power, and in effect punish all men for the actions of a few. They also ignore the fact that women have a lot more power than they used to, and are not the innocent virtuous creatures they were made to look when they had a lot less power.

Usual Suspect,

I do agree with a lot of what you say but you are misrepresenting some of my earlier statements. I do understand that male victims of DV might feel humiliated by coming forward but this does not diminish my earlier argument about the physical differences between most men and women.

I am a small framed woman of just under average height and my partner is 6'3 and larger framed. Luckily he is not a physically or emotionally abusive person but I would stand little chance if it came down to a physical fight. Naturally, as a level headed person, I would not instigate or stir the pot by inflaming a heated situation. This is what I mean I think we all when we talk about personal responsibility.

It may surprise you to know that some of the most severely battered women are not abusive or inflamatory. Often they are meek pensive women who seek to reduce any risk of being abused by restricting and limiting their behaviour into a 'safe zone'. The fact is in most cases of consistent abusive behaviour, the men do not require much instigation.

While I understand the points you are making I am not willing to deflect or diminish the truth about domestic violence towards women.

What is needed, as I said previously, is for us all to work in unison rather than in opposition to reduce the incidence of violence overall. But you choose to ignore that aspect of my comments and cherrypick statements out of context with the rest of my previous post.

The strange thing is that underneath it all we are probably arguing for the same result but coming at it from opposite ends. Maybe?

Countrygirl,

I take on board all the above comments and agree that not all men exhibit that view.

Robert

You are one of the men on here who can see the issue from both sides and accept that there are grey areas and sometimes the issue is difficult because we all view it from our own personal experiences and I guess from the viewpoint of our gender (not to be too generalising).

yvonne

I agree with you about the Workcover Ad and it would be surprising if any women felt any sense of persecution or outrage because there are no women depicted. The fact is that men do perform most of the dangerous or high risk roles in society - mining, construction and defence for example. The fact that a man is depicted does not diminish the fact that we all require adequate health and safety standards at work.

As Nicky said (I think it was Nicky), this argument should be about coming up with solutions.

pelican,

'While I understand the points you are making I am not willing to deflect or diminish the truth about domestic violence towards women. '

This is the crux of it isn't it. Any discussion of men being hit, or women instigating something is somehow translated to an attempt to diminish the 'truth'. That being only women are victims, and it's in really bad taste to discuss a man being a victim. Just why cant both be the case? Why does discussing the dynamics of a relationship where a woman holds the power diminish the other times when men hold the power?

I know the rules now. If you are to discuss the (apparently miniscule) chance a woman is in the position of power, you are really just trying to defelect the blame or diminish the suffereing of female victims of male power. This is exactly the feminist PC tactics I am talking about, and the reason the adverts were structured in a way to totally deny any male victims You are so transparent it's not funny.

Just where have I attempted to diminish the suffering of female victims of domestic violence? It seems to discuss male victims, one must start by writing a disclaimer of how terrible you feel about the female victims. So, talk about male victims is allowed, as long as you don't threaten women's exclusive entitlement to victim status.

Hi all

I don't think this is an "either/or" issue; as someone pointed out, it is not about gender, it is about violence and abuse and control. I had a very dear friend who lived with an extremely abusive woman for 50 years or more, culminating in her actually stabbing him. He would never retaliate, nor report it, no matter how bad the verbal, emotional and physical attacks got. His wife was an alcoholic, and attacked him when she was drunk, and that was pretty much every day. The three children they had couldn't wait to leave home.

This man was a wharfie, and more than capable of defending himself in any other situations.

When I spoke of more/better reporting, it would mean that more reliable statistics would be out there, and the problem would then have to seen to be the multi-faceted issue that it so clearly is. Is the solution for men to take out intervention orders in these instances? Those reports would then have to be included in family violence statistics, and thus taken more seriously.

Just a thought.

Cheers
Nicky

Some great posts.

Robert, a man I know very well went through some serious problems with an abusive woman. It was pretty scary, especially as there were young children involved she had no problem insinuating might come to some harm.

She makes a habit of taking out DVO's against any man she happens to be in a relationship with and something doesn't quite go as she planned. That this is possible is abominable, it severely diminishes the seriousness of a DVO endangering lives.

As I've said on a number of threads on this issue: Violence is not the prerogative of either gender, but serious injury from DV affects more females than males. What needs to happen is that when a DVO is taken out, by either party, SERIOUS consequences must follow. A minimum of one year follow-up for BOTH parties with regular counselling. When one person lodges the third DVO some big alarm bells should go off.

What would make a great campaign is showing different scenarios of types of abuse/violence. For both genders and towards children. Violence in any form towards anybody is unacceptable.

I don't think there would be many women who would object to depictions of women being violent towards men and that this is unacceptable. I for one would think that a good thing.

yvonne, excellent post. Things may be changing but my experience on OLO suggests that a lot of people (not just women) really object to the idea of women being portrayed as the agressor. I've never really understood the objection, my impression is that doing so would take away from the fight against violence against women. They want the issue to be shown as a gender issue.

I see that as a different issue to the actual number perpetrating DV but with some interconnection. If you took the Qld Health website at face value then it is hard to argue for an across the board program.

Different scenarions and in the case of children involving neglect as well as abuse would be great. The child sexual abuse issue seems to have become the media focus for child abuse although in terms of substantiated abuse and negelect stats it's only a small proportion.

R0bert

'What would make a great campaign is showing different scenarios of types of abuse/violence. For both genders and towards children. '

That's all I argue for, but somehow I get lambasted for being insensitive to the plight of female victims of domestic violence whenever I do.

'Violence in any form towards anybody is unacceptable.'
Yes. But we have a situation where the government itself says only violence against women is unacceptable. In fact really only violence by men against women, even when lesbian couples have been proven to often contain a lot of violence by women against women. Sort of puts the motives of the adverts into perspective really.

Let's then argue for campaigns that state:

Violence against women: Australia says No.
Violence against men: Australia says No.
Violence against children: Australia says No.

Some of the men seem to object to men not being included as victims of women, but only perpetrators. But there was no objection of not being portrayed as victims of other men. Or of children being portrayed as victims of both.

The news at the moment is pretty grim in the violent death stakes.

yvonne,

Why do we need three campaigns? A campaign that deals honestly with the subject of domestic violence and it's affects on all parties involved.

'But there was no objection of not being portrayed as victims of other men. Or of children being portrayed as victims of both.'

You're seeing an objection should be based on equality of air time for victims, where as I see the lack of equality with treatment of abusers as well. As I said, why no violent lesbian relationships? So really, the focus of the ad isn't on the women victims, it's on the violent men.

The effects on children as you say aren't mentioned, and that could help to pull a few heart strings of abusive men surely. But I suppose we don't want to pull heart strings, as men have no heart, they just must be punished.

Obviously you couldn't display children as victims of women though, as women are mothers. Mothers will always put their children first, and if they don't, they really need help as any women who abuses her children is acting so out of character she must be under enormous stress or mental illness. Men on the other hand are violent by nature, and need punishment not help, and are often paedophiles not to be trusted around children anyway.

In fact I cant think of any advertising campaigns to curb women's behaviour. If you watch TV, no woman has ever drunk too much (How will you feel tomorrow), driven under the influence of alcohol (Ever seen a woman avoiding RBT patrols), exceeded the speed limit or driven recklessly (No flat chested, or fat ass advert?), not exercised enough (life be in it! Norm) or hit her partner (Australia Says No).

If I'm not mistaken, even the new binge drinking adverts concerntrate on the father sinfully asking his child to get him a drink, and more sinfully being so drunk that he doesn't immediately do as his wife tells him when cooking the BBQ.

Yvonne, "Or of children being portrayed as victims of both"

Usual Suspect "Obviously you couldn't display children as victims of women though, as women are mothers. Mothers will always put their children first, and if they don't, they really need help as any women who abuses her children is acting so out of character she must be under enormous stress or mental illness. Men on the other hand are violent by nature, and need punishment not help, and are often paedophiles not to be trusted around children anyway. "

Usual Suspect, Yvonne may make comments that we don't like at times but she has already acknowledged that both genders harm kids. Try dialog rather than opportunities for conflict. Yvonne has stuck around to discuss the issue (more than most do). She accepts it's not all men bad women good (again better than many). If we are to make progress on this issue it won't come by kicking anybody who comments but does not see the issues in exactly the same terms.

I'm not certain but I think there was some binge drinking adds targetting young women.

Yvonne, I'm one who has not placed much emphasis on the lack of adds portraying men being victims of men or on the child abuse stuff (although I have touched on that with the misuse of the idea of protecting women and children to support bias in residency). I'm not aware of any active discrimination against men resulting from misinformation about male violence outside the home. I've not been there but as far as I know male victims of violence outside the home do get taken seriously and are not assumed to be at fault.

The web sites I've seen dealing with child abuse and neglect deal with abuse by both genders, not ignore one side almost completely. I don't always agree with the analysis of the material but the raw stats appear to be genuine and accessable. I've not seen stuff on that front that puts children more at risk by ignoring substantial risk.

R0bert

Robert,

I accept your point, but I never attributed these attitudes to Yvonne. I talk about the attitudes I see in society, backed up by the adverts, and government. I don't see how that is 'kicking' Yvonne.

Usual Suspect. "Mothers will always put their children first, and if they don't, they really need help as any women who abuses her children is acting so out of character she must be under enormous stress or mental illness."

I find it strange that it is acceptable that it's OK for Mothers to be violent because they have had a bad hair day.

"Men on the other hand are violent by nature, and need punishment not help, and are often paedophiles not to be trusted around children anyway. "

I take umbrige with this comment. This assumed statement is thrown around by womens groups to gain an advantage over males. It is a MYTH.

Studies show that more women commit infantaside then men. This fact is conveniently ignored by all because nobody wants to recognise the fact. It's nicer to hold an imagined "ideal mother"

Fathers are just as caring as mothers. It's just that more is made of male violence then of mother violence.

How do I know. Personal experience from my first two wives. Now I keep cuttings of female violence. I have a port full of cuttings mostly small notes from Page 3 of the paper. Men on the other hand always made the front page.

Usual Suspect sorry I'd missed your post earlier in the week. I may be misreading your content then. That happens.

Jayb if you reread Usual Suspects posts I think you'll find he is paraphrasing the arguments used to attack men and provide extra support for members of mothers groups. He's not stating his own position with those comments.

R0bert

Sarah

My name is Sarah
I am but three,
My eyes are swollen
I cannot see,

I must be stupid,
I must be bad,
What else could have made
My mommy so mad?

I wish I were better,
I wish I weren't ugly,
Then maybe my Mommy
Would still want to hug me.

I can't speak at all! ,
I can't do a wrong
Or else I'm locked up
All the day long.

When I awake I'm all alone
The house is dark
My folks aren't home.

When my Mommy does come
I'll try and be nice,
So maybe I'll get just
One whipping tonight.

Don't make a sound!
I just heard a car
My mommy is back
From Charlie's Bar.

I hear her curse
My name she calls
I press myself
Against the wall.

I try and hide
From her evil eyes
I'm so afraid now
I'm starting to cry.

She finds me weeping
She shouts ugly words,
She says its my fault
That she suffers at work.

She slaps me and hits me
And yells at me more,
I finally get free
And I run for the door.

She's already locked it
And I start to bawl,
She takes me and throws me
Against the hard wall.

I fall to the floor
With my bones nearly broken,
And my mommy continues
With more bad words spoken.

'I'm sorry!', I scream
But it's now much too late
Her face has been twisted
Into unimaginable hate.

The hurt and the pain
Again and again
Oh please God, have mercy!
Oh please let it end!

And she finally stops
And heads for the door,
While I lay there motionless
Sprawled on the floor.

My name is Sarah
And I am but three,
Tonight my mommy
Murdered me.

Hi all

I think that where the system is lacking is that some women really can be appalling parents just as some men can, and it is not necessarily a gender issue. But there is certainly far more attention given in the media and the statistics to domestic violence perpetrated by men than by women, and this results in men who are victims getting a "raw deal".

Also, perhaps some women tend to think a bit more strategically, in terms of enacting DVOs when in fact they are the violent partner, and the man has simply retaliated, none of which is acceptable and (apart from placing a strain in the legal system) detracts from the real intention of DVOs. I'd be interested to know if any of our (anonymous) posters here, both male and female, have felt the need to take out DVOs and what the outcomes were.

I do know that in some states the man has been automatically perceived to be the "wrong-doer", and in fact has been imprisoned. By the time the facts emerged, and these men were exonerated, they had list their jobs, there homes, and their standing in the community.

Nicky