Kevin Rudd made an absolute statement today regarding violence against women - a clip of the statement is available at
http://www.livenews.com.au/Multimedia.aspx?cid=8&q=&id=112949&cats=&types=&from=01/01/0001&to=01/01/0001&page=1&sc=published&so=desc

He has also talked about the proportion of women who experience violence from ABS stats in a speech for White Ribbon day. A number of media outlets carry summaries of his comments on that occasion including http://www.theage.com.au/national/pm-hits-at-great-silent-crime-20080917-4ion.html

The comment in the clip which has been played quite a bit in the media left me wondering about the absolutes in the statement - how do the police get on if they need to restrain a violent woman? Is this a case of wanting to sound strong without really thinking about what he is saying? Does it make sense to go to such lengths to make an absolute statement if you don't really mean it?

The second point is why does this still need to be a gender issue? Why can't he speak against violence against anybody - women, men and children? Why no mention of the proportion of men mentioned in ABS stats who are assaulted both by other men and by females? Why no statement about assaults on children by carers or as a result of schoolyard violence?

Regardless of what we think about the relative rates of violence each group suffers from or how much harm is done we should be able to agree that if the standard is zero tollerance then that fits across the board. It does not need gender or age qualifications.

R0bert

I think we just have to accept that the perception in society is that it's ok for women to hit men, and men should be able to handle it. I agree with you but we've done this to death.

We live in a society where it is acceptable, or encouraged for a woman to slap a man in the face if he says something she doesn't like. It's considered comical if she kneees him in the groin. The reverse is beyond the pale. This will never change.

Political correctness only goes one way. It's a sin to say fireman, chairman, etc, but when talking about violence, it's fine and dandy to substitute man for aggressor and woman for victim.

Rudd quotes
'It is the silence that makes it the most insidious," Mr Rudd said. "Because it prefers the darkness. Because if it stays in the darkness, it cannot be discussed, debated — let alone dealt with'

If anything the silence would be more likely when a man is a victim (Not that man and victim should ever be in the same sentence, it just doesn't make sence) as this is perceived to be highly unlikely, and even if it happens the shame lies with the man for being a wuss anyway.

Roy Masters (Rugby League journalist who is often in the know) recently implied that Greg Bird actually threw a vase at his girlfriend, AFTER she had thrown a glass at him. That's why the girlfriend is so reluctant to press charges.

If this is true, I wonder what the reaction would be. As a man, I'm sure Greg should have stayed cool, and controlled the situation so that nobody gets hurt. This is the responsibility we always put on men when we only see violence by men as a problem.

But, no. To EVER even mention that in some cases women could have any responsibility in domestic disputes that turn violent is blaming the victim

R0bert:"why does this still need to be a gender issue?"

Because Rudd knows that his power base is predominantly the feminist-dominated union movement and if they don't like what he has to say, he'll be down the chute like a used tampon.

He is also aware that the vast amount of Government funding given to women has lead to the formation of enormously powerful and unaccountable "lobby groups" that will also swat him if he doesn't toe the feminist line that all men are bad and all women saints.

Even if that weren't the case, by particularising his case to the one gender, he can be assured that he will have the support of the fifty percent of the population that is of that gender, as well as some support from the other half. If he was to generalise his statement, he MAY get 50% support, but he'd also get the whole DV industry (which does very nicely out of demonising men) screaming the house down about how violence is somehow much worse if a woman is the victim.

Politics is a statistical game at best and Rudd is very good with statistics. This sort of statement means he need not fear being ambushed by a member of the enormously powerful DV industry at his next press conference.

If Kevin Rudd says such things.. you may be sure it is a nail in his own political coffin!

It is PHILOSOPHICALLY rediculous. Violence is never gender unique.

It is LEGALLY dangerous..and could see females taking advantage of this to abuse men.

It is REASONABLY stupid... what about WOMEN who are violent against women !

It is an admission of WEAKNESS because he knows all of the above are true..yet simply parrots the words dictated by those pulling his political strings.

So..I am going to counter it.

THE LAW ALLOWS FOR REASONABLE FORCE INCLUDING VIOLENCE AGAINT WOMEN in acts of self defense or in the apprehension of offenders!

because..it allows for reasonable force and violence in self defense of PERSONS.. with no gender attachment.

in fact..let me say it again.

REASONABLE FORCE INCLUDING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IN SELF DEFENSE OR DEFENSE OF ONE'S PROPERTY IS LAWFUL!

So.. Mr Rudd.. you are making UNlawful statements.. why?

It makes you look:

-Weak
-Silly
-Manipulated
-Spineless
-a Puppet
-a Trained dog

I'd say the very same things even if John Howard OR Peter Costello OR Malcolm Turnbull said them.

In feminist eyes when women and minorities and 'peace' protesters commit violence it is because they have been oppressed, mistreated, discriminated against etc. When it is a male then their is no excuse. I have met many men who act like mongrels towards woman and woman who act like alley cats towards men. For any real solution we need to get rid of the pc crap. The current trend for desperate older women to find teenage boys on the internet has seen slap over the wrist punishment. ON the other hand .......

Mr Rudd has spoken well in saying that there is a no tolerance of violence to women and that people need to have this imbedded into their psyche. He did not at the same time give carte blanche to women to commit violence to men. He did not deny that at times some women are vicious and cruel. However, the ommission of such statements have caused concern to those who would oppose Mr Rudd's statements. Given the statistics of violence, given the shame attached, and the silencing of the issues... I must wonder why people appear to feel that there is an imagined right to be violent to women, that they must vigorously defend. When will men stand up with Mr Rudd on this issue without trying to defend what well may be their own actions.

In a domestic violence situation, before a woman is physically assaulted, she will be subject to often hours and hours built up over time, of brainwashing which leads them to believe not only are they so worthless they deserve to be hit... but nobody will want to help them. Usually they would have become alientated from their friends and family and it is in their isolation, that violencewill begin. These women need public figures to stand up and decry violence against women.... they need to hear there is help available to them before they and often their children are seriusly hurt or even killed. And yet, the public would rather debate the way the announcement was put across.

Lets get behind our prime minister on this one...it is not a sign of intelligence to debate the acceptability of violence to men, to women, to children or to any member of our society. Violence is unacceptable!