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!

Dear Robert,

I agree with you that there should be zero
tolerance of violence, regardless whether
it's against women, men, or children.
It is distressing that the extent of
violence in groups whose members are
supposed to love and care for one
another is not easily explained. It suggests
that the modern family may sometimes be under
greater pressures than it can easily bear.

Tension over gender roles is only one aspect of
conflict in the family. The sociological research of
the past two decades has revealed an astonishing amount
of family violence - between spouses, parents and
offspring, and among the offspring themselves.

Surveys suggest that each year so many
couples go through a violent episode in which one
spouse tries to cause the other serious pain or injury.

Wives assault their husbands as often as husbands assault
their wives, and spouses are equally likely to kill
each other. The police detest "disturbance calls"
usually family fights because of the vicious and
dangerous nature of so many of these conflicts.

Why the PM focused only on women could possibly be
due to the fact that wife-beating is considered
by our society as a very serious problem because
its reported more often than the abuse of men,
and therefore it's considered more widespread.
I don't know the statistics.

It could also be due to the fact that the
violence between spouses takes place in a general
social context that has traditionally emphasised
male dominance and female subservience. But,
I am just guessing.

Today, there is a strong trend
towards greater equality between the spouses.
Hopefully this will bring about changes for the
better.

One can only hope.

Sofisu,

'When will men stand up with Mr Rudd on this issue without trying to defend what well may be their own actions.'

I hope you're not implying anyone who wants a gender neutral approach to violence is just a woman basher?

'These women need public figures to stand up and decry violence against women...'

So if someone stands up and decry's violence full stop, are they somehow not decrying violence against women?

This is what I am interested in, this response from you. How is the message weakened by including all violence? Or are women just more precious than men and children?

'In a domestic violence situation, before a woman is physically assaulted, she will be subject to often hours and hours built up over time'
Not ALWAYS. That might be the majority, I don't know the figures though. But what about the case of a woman getting increasingly hysterical, pushing emotional buttons, throwing things, slapping, kicking and punching until the man finally loses his temper and lashes out? You might not care at all for the man in this situation, but what about the increased risk to the woman?

Why are you not concerned in decreasing the cycle of violence when women have had a hand in it. The scenario you talk of is very common, but it isn't the only way things happen. Don't you think if women were also encouraged not to instigate violence, which then could get out of hand if the man doesn't keep a cool head and retaliate, that would save a lot more women from being in a violent situation?

In a case such as I pondered in the Greg Bird example, don't you see that if the woman was also taught not to be violent, the chance of the injury she suffered from the retaliatory actions of the man dissappears? Or do you think we should just focus on the men, and give them sole responsibility for all domestic disputes.

'Violence is unacceptable!'
Yes, it is. But we are teaching our children only violence against women is unacceptable.

It's because feminism and the sexism and destruction it casues in society is now institutional. There are studies and courses being funded in universities to "prove" injustices against women and that men are to blame for something (rather than women themselves). It's disgraceful and extremely corrupt. Even something like the United Nations has an institution *dedicated* to active discrimination of this kind.

In other words, it's extremely profitable to be a feminist, call yourself a feminist as you will receive money from supplicants and support by the feminist extremists who drive all the policy. If you say otherwise you will likely be demoted from your position and the main political parties will not promote you (you will be discriminated against if you do not "believe" in feminism, or it's continued relevance)

I agree with you Robert

US “I think we just have to accept that the perception in society is that it's ok for women to hit men,”

I recall someone’s estranged wife jumping him and attacking him until he pushed her off. Then she said to him, where upon she declared she now had the bruises she needed to support her separation demands.

It is no more acceptable for women to hit men than it is for men to hit women and no different to excuse children who hits teachers whilst castigating teachers who hit children.

I all comes down to what sort of society do you want to foster,

one where violence against the person is selectively excused or

one where violence against the person is CONSISTENTLY condemned.

I find “consistency” far easier to understand and legislate for than subjective “selectivity” especially when our legal processes are supposed to be “blind” and non-discriminatory.

I can't believe the posts on this topic.

Do a body count.

Reflect on how many men are killed by women,
and how many women are killed by men.

I think you've all become desentitized to
violence against women. Hardly a day goes by
(I can't even think of the last day that went
by) that the news doesn't report a woman, if not
a whole family, murdered by a male.

Also - Anita Cobby style cruelty by gangs of
men. How often do women organize into groups
to hurt, humiliate, torture and murder men ?
Sometimes, no doubt - but at the rate men do
these things to women ? No.

Pynchme thousands of male babies have their bodies violated without their consent every year when their genitals are deliberately mutilated by their parents. Don't show your ignorance and pettiness by referring to numbers as if it makes any difference. A person murdered is no different whether it is a man or woman who is the victim. The fact that you think the male victim is worth less because his 'entire gender' is responsible for some grievance is utterly disgusting....and serves to prove the point of those comments you "can't believe". Another chilling example is when mothers "terminate" their children without the slightest concern or regard for the new life (only their own, matters to them). The media is generally propaganda and has the same institutional bias so invoking it is ignorance.

Hello Robert

Rudd was comenting on the football players who have been accused of sexually abusing a lady in a night club toilet block.

Three QLD plays in the Broncos have been accused.

Seuxal abuse is mostly carried out by men against women. While I suppose there may be a man somewhere who claims he was raped by a lady I dont think that is common.
Rather it is common for men to sexually attack women .

The shear strenght of a man is nornally much stronger than that of a lady.


Men can defend themselves and walk out the door.


I cant say I agree with Foxy after being involved in a DVP programe.

We have never once had a case of a man being attacked by a lady.

However we have had 'many' cases involving the husband or partner abusing his wife.

I just do not understand why our Government is continously permitted to discriminate. Violence should be taboo, not just violence against women but also violence against men. Our daughters and sons should be protected. To not include men is, in my opinion, presenting the matter as a problem only against one sex when that is so far from the truth- especially in this day and age

PALE advocates the humane care of animals and the execution of people who sell drugs.

There are many reasons why women may choose to remain silent even if the statistics given are to be taken at face value. These DV centres probably exaggerate the claims or use some kind of special pleading to claim abuse. I would like to see an inquiry into their practices and some of the members of these organisations....I think it would be like finding a communist in charge of reporting the abuses of capitalism.

Rudd is advocating the social engineering of the entire Australian population of men, regardless of the reality or any balanced sense of this situation, the decisions of these women and any misreporting and deceit on the part of these activist organisations. It's outrageous when you think about such a thing but it's symptomatic of the arch-socialist to show such contempt for people (and as you can see, Rudd is an arch-socialist). It should be obvious now to even those still doubtful that the ideology is to manipulate and promote guilt in men (regardless of actual guilt) as a group through propaganda (regardless of actual truth).

Steel (and co),

Claims have been made in some of the posts that women
perpetrate violence against men as much as the other
way around.

As I say, despite your previous histrionics that made
no sense - do a body count.

Secondly, if men are being victimized (and some are
it's true) in the proportions claimed; then get
busy and open some shelters and take care of those
that apparently are not accessing existing support
services.

The way to ensure safety for male victims is not to
close your eyes to women as victims of the same
violence; or to oppose and suppress the voices of
people who object to it, but to take your energy
and opposition to the male perpetrators of violence.

Why are you not speaking out against them ?

PALEIF, if you listen to Rudd's comments he specifies that he is not refering to that case although I think the question was about that. Maybe a dodge to comment without commenting.

Foxy, lovely post thanks. It is my understanding that at the extreme end of the range men are more likely to kill a partner or do serious harm - the more extreme the greater the difference. That has some relevance but then as Usual Suspect points out breaking the cycle of violence is important and you don't do that by only focussing on one part of the violence as most of the anti-DV focus seems to do.

Pynchme, why is asking for a statement of violence against all people get considered to be closing our eyes to violence against women or defending violence against women? In my opening post I did point out that Rudd's phrasing is difficult when it comes to the police doing their job but thats not an endorsement of the problem violence.

Depending on who's stats you believe the incidence of violence against men by women is possibly higher, it's the severity of injury at the high end of the scale thats different. There is serious dispute over the methodologies used but if you are talking numbers there is little real argument, it's the characteristics of the conflicts which are most in dispute. There is also some evidence which suggests that women who hit men are at a far higher risk of serious injury than those who don't regardless of who initiated the violence.

We need clear and unambiguois statments that it's not OK for anybody to use violence against another as a means of addressing private grievances regardless of their gender, size, race, religion or whatever. Our pollies consistantly fail to say that.

R0bert

If RUDDish wants people to believe he has an independant brain...and if you people supporting his expressed view.. want to have a shred of credibility......

Then DON'T just parrot stupidity.

It is LAWFUL to use reasonable force against ANYone being violent towards you.

Note that word LAWFUL....

So..when Mr RUDDish says "under no circumstances at anytime" he is in reality being SEDITIOUS because he is trying to overturn our written law!

The use of highly emotive but discriminatory public statements by people who should know better is ludicrous.

The issue here is NOT about whether one gender is more or less violent against the other..

The LAW is clear about ANYone violent towards anyone else of ANY gender.

This issue here is about what RUDDish SAID! and what he "said" is contrary to our LAW.

8/09/2008 , 06:01 AM Prime Minister Kevin Rudd responds to a question about the trouble the Brisbane Broncos find themselves on.

Duration: 70 minsSend to friendSend to friend

David Robert etc

For goodness sake pls read the above link that you put there Robert.

I am no fan of Rudds but to say he has broken the law over comments made over the broncos alledged sexual assualt is silly.

This was a sexual attack by 3 men on a lady in a Brisbane night club they were discussing.

*Of course nobody should sexually abuse anybody or phycically for that matter.*

The botton line is however its men who rape women etc ( Not the other way around.

Show us one case even that you know of that a woman has raped a man for goodness sake.

It is understood that men ARE stronger and could simply get up and run.

David you make yourself look more stupid than normal when you say Rudd has broken the law by commenting on the broncos affair.

Also whoever said pale promote kindness to animals but think drug dealers should be shot+
A That comment is off post
B Whats our problem now you raised it with that?
Do you think these people who are killing thousands of our kids should be free to do it again?


Robert I am not sure what you asre trying to draw attention to here but I have seen these comments before.
I am sure if you could just give me some idea of whas behind this I might be able to agree with you.
So are you aware of cases that women have sexually abused men or bashed them?
I am not talking about child abuse btw.

If you are talking about women abusing little children in any way thats a different matter.

That is a very serious crime and woman or man those offenders ought to be locked away in a prison for life with no second chances.
Oh and the other prisoners usually find child abusers.

nice to see you Robert

take care .

Robert

I would like to add one more thing while it’s on my mind.

A great deal of abuse stems through too much grog. I get really upset if a man does not take his kids out of a home where by the partner is an alcoholic.

Same applies to women. They are even more guilty if they stay in the home knowing the husband is a drunk and likely to start up abuse at anytime.

This is where I can say Robert I agree with you.

In my past work I often attended jobs where Mother would be drunk and sometimes Dad too.
These women who prefer to stay because it’s easier to live on Dads wages than get a job themselves should be charged for child abuse.


Then they rock up to court crying oh pls don’t goal him your honor he’s the father of my kids and I love him etc.

I think many females especially mothers play games. Courts are starting to se through this and giving more Dads full control of children.

I think it’s a good thing courts are waking up to females who cry abuse simply to get a court order for example.

Then they cry Abuse and poor little me because my partner is a alcoholic.

I guess I have strayed from the Boncos howeve

I am very sick of over paid, drunken sports people. That said, a few questions for PALE.

Do you have any idea of the number of young "ladies" who go out to "score" a Bronco?

Could you suggest how this "lady" got into a toilet. with 3 Broncos?

Do you think a young "lady" could have been abducted, from a public bar, without anyone noticing?

Do you think she may have found 3 at once, more than she had wanted?

Do you think she wanted some publicity?

There are more than a few other possibilities, but I'll leave it at that.

R0bert,

Violence - assault; murder - is already against the law and always has been.

Violence against women has only fairly recently even become a matter for police intervention.

Let's say the crime in question was robbery. Your argument would go: We shouldn't say we won't tolerate robbery during home invasions, because that minimizes the crime of robbery overall and other kinds of robbery are just as important.

DV is different in just the same way. It has different context: For one thing, it happens in relationships and there is a lead up - power and control over outside relationships; over money; over pets and children; every aspect of the woman's life and being to the point that her safety is at risk.

Also the myth that women abuse as much is just a myth. Men rarely live in terror of their female partners, or have to pack up and run with kiddies in tow. Also, the greatest danger for a woman is when she has actually left. That, as I understand it, is when most DV resulting in murder happens.

As I said, in the end, the evidence is at the morgue.

It isn't helpful to minimize what these women experience. Either you disapprove and stand against it, or you don't. The villains are not the victims, nor feminists, nor feminist ideology - the villains are men who commit the crime. Why does it seem so hard for men to express disapproval of other men who do such things ?

Pynchme:"the villains are men who commit the crime"

Very well, let's limit the discussion to those who commit the crime. the rhetoric coming from rudd and those like you is that by condemning all such violent acts we are somehow devaluing the experience of women victims in particular. I say that's malarkey. OTOH, by seeking to limit the discussion to those cases in which women are victms, you don't merely devalue the experience of male victims, you'd have us ignore them completely.

So, let's be clear in our terms:
1. do you claim that there are circumstances in which violence towards women is acceptable?
2. what are those circumstances?
3. do you claim that there are circumstances in which violence towards men is acceptable?
4. what are those circumstances?

After we get past the basics, perhaps we can move on to more complex matters.

From what I've seen of Rudd's utterances, he would have benefitted from some thought about these questions before opening his political gob and trying to cement his support among the feminist-dominated unions.

Here we go again. It is a shame that, in attempting to highlight violence towards men, that violence towards women is somehow downplayed or viewed with cynicism and derision by some (not all).

Of course violence should be discouraged regardless of gender.

But as Pynchme stated look at the body count. Also look at the number of women that come through casualty departments.

Why is it that we have to demean or minimise the experience of women to highlight violence in another section of the community. This serves no positive purpose for either men or women.

Many years ago women who experienced DV had nowhere to go and were expected to put up with their lot because of economic dependency. It was not until womens' refuges were formed (read Anne Summers "Ducks on the Pond") that women had a safe haven of escape.

Why not just campaign purely on the issue without the need to go on the attack which seems to be just about the norm on OLO whenever DV is raised.

Then the attack on feminists start again with no understanding of the origins of the feminist movement and more conspiracy theories about 'feminists taking over the world'. It is just laughable.

RObert I know this was not your intention and I am commenting more on the tone of comments that followed. Violence can be experienced by everyone but in this case the PM just happened to be talking about violence against women.

If he had made a comment about violence towards children no-one would be jumping up arguing why the PM did not mention women or men.

Let's keep it in perspective.

AntiS,

There are no times that violence against anyone is acceptable.

When people are being arrested or whatever you're getting at - the police need to do whatever they must to ensure the safety of others in the community.

Btw - you might just note that all you mainstream conservatives have never raised the issue of rape of males; DV; child sexual abuse by family members or any of those things. Feminist analysis has brought these matters to light and advocated for recognition and justice for them all.

So my questions to you are: Why do you feel the need to bury the issues again ? Why is there a need to pretend that women are not experiencing DV ?

Pynchme:"all you mainstream conservatives"

I'm gobsmacked! Most people I know regard me as socialist,perhaps leaning slightly to a more libertarian view. I guess it all depends on the observer's own position.

Pynchme:"never raised the issue of rape of males; DV; child sexual abuse by family members or any of those things. Feminist analysis has brought these matters to light and advocated for recognition and justice for them all."

What a lot of twaddle. Rape of males by females is generally rewarded with a suspended sentence; DV claims have routinely been used as a weapon in family law matters, whether the DV was real or imagined;child sexual abuse has been a matter of social concern for a long time, predating the rise of radical feminisam by some considerable time. All of the issues are also relatively minor in terms of the total numbers afflicted, yet the "mainstream" feminist movement is happy to use them to justify broad-ranging assaults on all men.

Pynchme:"Why do you feel the need to bury the issues again ?"

Who said anything about burying it? I simply want the terms of reference broadened. What's sauce for the goose and all that.

Pynchme:"Why is there a need to pretend that women are not experiencing DV ?"

No one is suggesting that except you with your poisonous little strawman. Why do you feel the need to misrepresent others, albeit clumsily and crudely?

Pynchme there is no intent to bury the issue of violence against women.

I'll take you up on your example of robbery during home invasions. If the government had poured millions into an advertising campaign against that particular form of robbery but pointedly refused to make a clear statement against armed hold ups of banks and convenience stores you might imagine that bank tellers and convenience store operators would get a little jack of the issue. If when a bank teller called to report a robbery the cops pointed out that the robbery was not during a home invasion so it's not really an issue the tellers might get a little upset when yet more home invasion speciific material was put out there.

Asking for the government to broaden it's opposition to violence to include all people is not trying to dismiss violence against women.

Pelican the perspective is that we have had years of focus on a genderised view of violence with as far as I'm aware only one clear statement by federal pollies with ministerial authority against violence against everybody. At the time the Violence Against Women campaign was started one of the ministers involved eventually conceeded under pressure that all violence was wrong.

The net result of this genderised approach is that men don't get the suppoort they need when they have a violent spouse and more women continue to be seriously hurt then might otherwise be because no body outside the home is telling them not to hit.

I'd not give a rats about the genderised nature of Rudds comments if the opposition to other violence was adequately addressed elsewhere but it's not.

R0bert

Robert I don't quite grasp the parallel you're trying to draw.

Like with the home invasion. It doesn't matter if there is a focus on home invasions, when all forms of robbery are already outlawed. That is, the law; police; justice system all agree that robbery is against the law.

Now - assault is against the law; no matter who does the assaulting. The fact is, however, that men are not assaulted by women as often as the other way around. If they are assaulted, they of course need to report it and seek assistance. They are entitled to it already.

On the other hand, the rate at which women are assaulted, in a domestic situation, has been entirely unrecognized until recently. Also, there is a contextual and qualitative difference. Where DV is concerned, it isn't just a one-off smack up the ear. There is a long progression of control and multi faceted violent behaviour - threats and the like. Women not allowed to see friends or family; having
little to no personal finances or control over finances; being
monitored and threatened with harm if they leave. The deaths
that we read about are often perpetrators making good on their threats.

I find it very disheartening when men have such difficulty in simply saying - that is wrong! It needs to stop! Whoever is doing it is WRONG. I don't have any problem disapproving of women who hurt men - why is it that men seem to argue the issue of DV? How can it be problematic to express disapproval ?

As I said before, how many men live in fear of their female partners? Some, perhaps. What do you think?

Hasbeen,
All I know is what I heard like everybody else. That a young lady had lodged a formal complaint she was sexually abused by three men.
At this stage the police are taking this complaint seriously.
Now I dont know about football players Socker plays or piano players.
It really makes little difference to me.
What I am concerned about however in todays culture is that police have had to protect the property where the alledged assualt took place.

They say some people have been threatening and abusing the owners because there was a foot ball match coming up and they were supporting the players.
All in all pretty awful stuff and well worth our PM to take note.

For once in his life I agree with PM Rudd.

It was the right thing to do to say something.

Nobody should abuse anybody but for goodness sake the figures and facts speak for themselves- Men Do abuse women. Men do assualt women. Men Do rape women.
Come to think of it I dont think there are many lady bank robbers either.
Women stealing cars- Umm perhaps a few.

Hey guys we gals are looking good:)

Pynchme, why is it so necessary for you to ignore the same controlling behaviours when they happen to men? Do you think that are not some women who do the things you describe to partners just as some men do?

Whilst female assault on men is technically illegal very few in authority take it seriously. I know of men who have tried to report abuse by a female spouse to the police and been laughed at. I've had marriage counselors dismiss my former wifes violence on the basis that she was smaller than me and unlikely to do serious harm and accepted her view that her violence was justified because she did not like how I was standing (even when I was seated driving a car). Peole have got so fixed on the idea that violence is something men do that they don't recognise it when women do it.

It's an issue that needs some attention.

I'm trying to keep this discussion away from the relative proportions of DV perpetrated by both genders, thats a whole other discussion but if you are in the least interested in some serious studies on that I'll provide some links to material.

I'm quite happy to say violence against women is wrong. Violence against women is wrong. Done, I've never denied that, never tried to downplay it or dismiss it.

What I have trouble understanding is why federal politicians and people such as yourself have so much trouble saying violence against men is wrong.

R0bert

R0bert,

I don't have any trouble saying that violence by women against men is wrong. I said something to that effect in my last post. Women who hurt men should be charged and held accountable to the full extent that's possible by law and socially.

If victims are laughed at then of course that needs addressing. I can tell you that I have known of one man who was injured by his wife and of course I stood for him, as I have for females. Violence perpetrated against a partner is wrong; physical violence is assault.
However, it is also true that in that case, it was one hit/one time. He hadn't lived in fear over a period of time.

I know the relative proportions of DV; right down to some hospital presentations (though data of that sort is not widely collected). If you're busy soaking your hurts in some of those mens sites - the likes of which Glen Sacks supports; I urge you to go to xymasculinities and to find other research as well - check the information they provide VERY carefully.

We can both be opposed to DV, no matter which sex perpetrates it - but hiding one isn't going to throw the other into relief. Btw, if people are laughing at and disbelieving when men say they are hurt, that's a result of old style sexism, to which of course, I am opposed.

Excellent posts Pynchme.

The following will be my one and only contribution to this thread, as I find just reading the callousness directed at women too upsetting after being beaten and mentally abused for 8 years by my ex, before I was able to get enough courage together to leave.

DV - irrespective of who does it to whom is quite clearly wrong. What I find disturbing is the vitriol that pours out whenever violence against women is even mentioned. It is as if there is a deliberate attempt to stop any discussion about behaviour that does occur and requires help.

R0bert I suggest that you seek websites that are inclusive of both men and women - I have been reading up on the likes of Warran Farrell and Robert Bly and they are very clearly determined to place the onus for fault completely with women. Farrell even claims that single dad are better at raising kids than single women. Aside from the fact that there are more single mothers than men - this is just absurd. I believe that both sexes have the same abilities to be nurturing. I also believe that both sexes have the same propensity for abuse, HOWEVER, physical abuse is more likely to be used by men - it is far easier to swing a fist, than it is to try and reason with someone. Men are raised to be physical - women are raised to be helpless. What is needed is some balance - boys encouraged to be caring, girls encourage to be assertive rather than manipulative.

Fact is, as PALE pointed out, most violence is committed by men. Most anger management programs are for men.

Some interesting links:

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

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/vaw/ll_vaw.nsf/pages/vaw_2006mencanstopvaw

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-testosterone-alone-doesnt-cause-violence

Cont'd

Cont'd

Another fact is, that the vast majority of men DO NOT behave aggressively to women.

But of those who do, physical violence is most commonly used to maintain dominance. I know. I have been on the receiving end of a male fist. He was of average size for a male and I am of slim build for a female - I didn't have a hope in avoiding his rages, he was too fast and too strong. The only way I could've attacked him physically was by setting an ambush. So, instead, I built up a support network of friends and with their help I moved out. I could not have done it by myself, only the presence of others kept him from assaulting me. He was always most charming when other people were around.

I guess this is why many men don't realise that their friends are violent towards their partners because many violent men hide it so well. Maybe this is why they don't speak out as Pynchme suggested, because they are not aware of it. Because I do know, from personal experience, that when good men are confronted by violent behaviour by other males, they do take action. I can recall being told after, that "I had no idea he could be that bad." To normal, caring men it is hard to believe and accept that people they work or are friends with can really be so violent. But it does happen, I have experienced it personally.

AND NO-ONE WILL EVER ASSAULT ME AGAIN. I have made very sure of that, I have had to toughen up in ways, that in a truly civilised society, I shouldn't have to.

Polycarp is right also. The quibbling about who does the most violence by Pynchme and Fractelle is disgusting. Men are the greatest victims of violence when you take into account genital mutilation, which permanently and savagely rips off parts of their sexual genitalia. Feminism as it is is so sexist that these violations, and those such as others like Robert have described, are ignored or laughed at. I can assure you that men will continue to have no sympathy for women while this gross and disgusting hypocrisy continues. The last posts simply prove that feminists have a corrupted morality and approve of rampant sexism by our Prime Minister, who should know better.

If people are assaulted by their partners they have two choices: Accept it, or not tolerate it. Life presents many tough choices and circumstances far harder than such decisions. You can either *reward* partners who like to use violence by staying with them or remaining silent (a decision many people make), or with some courage (if needed) ending the relationship and reporting their abuses to the police (or not, it's really up to the person making such a choice). As I said many people find violence acceptable up to a certain point. This is their personal decision and no one elses.

Thanks Fractelle.

Glad to hear that you've broken free and that you're
safe. Great going. Sorry also that you've endured
that sort of sadness.

Thanks for posting the link to xyonline and to the other
sites. (I should have checked the name before I mentioned
the site, so ta.)

Steele and associates. You seem unaware of or in disagreement with systems theories that explain how social institutions and cultural beliefs work complimentarily to maintain patterns of power and advantage, alongside existing patterns of disadvantage for people with less power and influence in the system. Your theory of individual choice as ultimate and possible for everyone suggests this.

Lucky you that you've never been on the receiving end of systemic abuse or inequality so that you may remain happily oblivious to the worst effects of the status quo. Lifting the veil of your blindness might be painful. It takes courage and compassion, but other men have done it.

Steel, "men will continue to have no sympathy for women "

I completely disagree with that comment and the sentiment behind it. Thats just as big a part of the problem as those who don't have sympathy for men who are assaulted because other men commit most assaults.

Fractelle, I won't respond to your comments as you appear to not want to get dragged into this.

Pynchme, I hope the sources I use are inclusive of both men and women. What I pay most attention to though is the steps taken to remove bias from the findings. Papers which start with the assumption that violence is something men do to women and never question that don't get my respect.

Some of the material tends to be only available via advocacy sites and it's probably a matter of opinion as to wether they are friendly to both men and women. That criteria probably depends on what you believe about DV in the first place. The most useful of these sites I'm aware of is RADAR, I don't like the tone much but they do reference some useful research and sometimes some junk.

My suggestion would be to start with the summary article at http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/170018.pdf - the US department of Justice is unlikely to be a front for a mens group.

There was also some interesting research done by Australian Academics
The the site I've got a link for is an advocaysite but as far as I can tell the research is legitimate and was not initiated by a mens group http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/dom/heady99.htm

I've also often recommended a book by a feminist author Patricia Pearson which looks at the harm done to the equality cause by the cover up of female violence. I don't know how available it is but it's an interesting perspective on the issue - "When She Was Bad". As you point out much of that is old style sexism.

R0bert

PALE... what I 'actually' said is this:

"What Rudd said is 'CONTRARY' to our law" i..e. he should know that violence as in reasonable force is ABSOLUTELY legal against ANY person attacking you.

That is not a gender based law.

When he says "All violence against women in ANY circumstances" he is saying something that is directly contrary to our written law.

He didn't 'break' the law in saying it.. he just spouted a mouth full of ..utter ruddish.

I can see how incredibly subjective many posters are.. thinking this is an argument about 'Who commits most violence'... complete rot...

The TOPIC is.. "absolute statements" and violence against women.

Rudd made an 'ABSOLUTE' statement.. about that matter which is contrary to our law... that's IT.

Any public mention of the unnaceptability of violence should be gender NEUTRAL....

I can't see why so many of you are wasting time on straw women arguments here.

Dear Fractelle,

I just want to Thank You for being so
open and honest in discussing a topic
that for you couldn't have been easy.
That was a very courageous thing for you
to have done. Thanks for sharing.
And my heart goes out to you for the
pain and anguish that you had to endure.
I Congratulate you for having moved out
of a destructive situation, and having had
the capability to set your life back on
track. Not many are able to do that.

I also think that it is a shame
that some posters
don't have the necessary
compassion to understand
and recognise another's
painful experience.

Violence is wrong. And should not be condoned
under any circumstances.

Showing a bit of understanding
does not cost much.
It's the least we can all do.

Hi Robert,

Thanks for the links. All interesting reading.

We can at least agree that there is a lot of conflicting
evidence, however, I don't doubt that there are male victims
of DV as well as female (as I said earlier), but the proportion
of people seriously injured or killed as a result of relationship
violence remains overwhelmingly women. Other types of violence - same.

From a personal perspective: I have worked in human services for a very long time and encountered many victims of violence; a couple of them male; but by far mostly female. I have worked with perpetrators too. I feel compassion for them all. In my experience, DV encompasses more than physical violence - there is engendered fear, control and humiliation. Of women, certainly I think that women who do not subscribe to feminist ideals have mostly survived by being secretive and manipulative. I have never met or even heard of a man, though, who lived in fear of his partner. (Mind you, the day isn't over.) This fellow writes of his experience, which resonated with my own:

http://www.xyonline.net/Nonviolentmenhavenothing.shtml

I don't agree with Elizabeth Pearson. I think she over emphasizes the notion that feminists have adopted an anti-male bias. I'm a feminist; I don't hate men at all. I don't know any feminists who hate men, though there are sure to be some. The only male bashing I have encountered has come from non-feminist women, to be honest. I don't share their views and I doubt that many feminists do. There are even a few men who I love dearly :) I could write at length about it and maybe will if we continue. However I do agree with her basic premise which is that we need to engage men in helping to stop violence.

cont'd

cont'd

You might have read about the difficulties of using the CTS (Conflict Tactics Scale) which I think is the basis of studies like the Dunedin piece. Michael Flood writes eloquently about it. Some aspects of that study - as comprehensive as it is; would bear further investigation - for example, note some of the questions asked only of women.

Violence against women and men in Australia - What the Personal Safety Survey can and can't tell us about domestic violence. By Michael Flood. http://www.xyonline.net/downloads/FloodViolencePSS.pdf

If that link doesn't work, it can be found on this page here:
http://www.xyonline.net/articles.shtml

Just speaking for a moment beyond our own social situation, I found this most interesting too:

http://www.womenforwomen.org/news-women-for-women/support-women-bi-annual-journal.php

Skip down to the second link - writings from both Michael Flood and Elizabeth Pearson.

Lastly for now, there is a real paradox, where various fathers' rights groups are concerned, in the idea that men are victimized as much as women, by women. That is, one wonders why such groups are working so hard to dismantle services, programs and laws that help victims (female and male), rather than encouraging men to use them. Anyway, we can continue at another time. I'll be away for a week or so but I'll check back later.

http://www.xyonline.net/Protectingperpetrators.shtml

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=2160

"When I was in college 25 years ago I remember my roommate telling me about a recent lecture on "ecofeminism" in his class. The feminist professor's thesis was "just as men rape women, they rape the earth."

So here the male students in the class (the small percentage who make it to college these days) had been listening to this anti-male nonsense class after class and finally did what they should do far, far more often--they challenged it. Rather than engaging in debate, the feminist professor pretended to be a victim, cancelled classes for a week, scurried off to another school to teach, and is now suing her students. It is also quite possible that some of those who rebelled against the feminist professor were female students who've not yet been poisoned with the anti-male bigotry relentlessly pushed in Women's Studies classes."

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?page_id=2455

"One blinder is that women generally use less detectable methods to murder intimates than men do. One of the most popular female methods is to poison the victim, and these poisonings are often mistakenly recorded as "heart attacks" or "accidents" instead of murder.

Another blinder is that women are much more likely than men to use "contract" killers, and contract killers often disguise murders as accidents or suicides. Even when a paid killer is caught and the truth is known, the DOJ counts the murder as a "multiple-offender" killing instead of as a murder of a man by a female intimate.

Also, men who murder women tend to come from lower income backgrounds, whereas women who murder men are more likely to come from middle-class backgrounds. The financial disparities allow for women to have better legal representation, resulting in more acquittals. According to a Justice Department study, women are nine times as likely as men to be acquitted in a trial for the murder of a spouse, and 10 times as likely to receive probation instead of prison time."

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?page_id=2450

"Unfortunately, alarmist claims of pregnant women being victimized by male partners are not new. For example, in 1993 Time magazine and many major newspapers reported that, according to the March of Dimes, domestic violence was the leading cause of birth defects. This claim was later found to be *!*!*completely fictional*!*!*, and was retracted by Time and others."

pynchme,

'As I said before, how many men live in fear of their female partners? Some, perhaps. What do you think?'
Why does it matter? Are the fewer women who die in war worthy of less attention than the many men?

'Secondly, if men are being victimized (and some are
it's true) in the proportions claimed; then get
busy and open some shelters and take care of those
that apparently are not accessing existing support
services.'

Well if we keep promoting that only violence towards women is a problem, or implying by omission that violence towards men doesn't happen, how many men do you think will think they should expect support when it does happen?

How do you think a guy feels when he has to deal with his drunk abusive partner coming home weilding knives around in a rage and throwing stuff, kicking and punching, while watching adverts that tell him he is the real abuser. What he is experiencing doesn't happen, and society tells him he is less of a man if he defends himself (remember, under no circumstances is violence against women ok), and less of a man if he just cops the beating. No win situation.

Fractelle,

'Another fact is, that the vast majority of men DO NOT behave aggressively to women.'
I think this is a lot of the problem. Maybe the DV adverts should actually recognise this rather than implying that all men are secretly abusers. It's an insidious crime you know, it's everywhere! You're all under suspicion! We're onto you, all you men!

Pynchme, I've read some of Floods work on CTS. There is a paper at the RADAR site by either Straus or Gelles (can't remember which) addressing the criticisms of CTS, talking about some changes they have made etc. I don't have the link on this PC but if you are interested I'll post it when you get back.

The bit that sticks out about the criticisms of CTS is that I've not seen anything which convinces me that the stats used to support an overwhelmingly genderised view of DV are any better. My reading suggests that they often build in bias based on assumptions about power in domestic relationships or ignore social factors leading to different reporting patterns.

I'd prefer to see the "body count" aspect of this debate sidelined unless we are only concerned with the extreme end of DV, the vast bulk of DV does not result in hospital visits or funerals but does involve abusive behaviour that none should be exposed to. I think that the big stuff is built on the little stuff and that we will reduce that body count by reducing the acceptability of lower level abusive behaviours by both genders.

Living in fear - I had only limited physical fear of my ex, I was only really at serious risk if caught unawares or in a bad situation. I did live in almost constant fear of emotional abuse, of having something else I cared about becoming a target because it was another way to get at me. I lived in fear that any disagreement would become a major dispute, I lived in fear that any critical time at work or in my studies would be used to revist old disagreements.

That is a different experience to straight out physical terror, I can't put myself in those other shoes but I'd not lightly dismiss it either.

R0bert

In case anybody is interested in the issues around CTS the material I refered to earlier is at http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CTS4.pdf

The summary of whats it's about is as follows

"In view of both the wide use and the criticism of the CTS, it is important to have a comprehensive assessment of this instrument. Researchers need to know how to make the most effective use of the CTS, which is not always obvious, and they need to know the limitations of the data generated by the CTS.' To achieve this, the chapter
1. Brings together and evaluates criticisms of the CTS as a measure of violence between couples so that users are aierted to problems and limitations of the instrument. Some of these criticisms will be shown to be correct, and others are erroneous.
2. Describes revisions and supplementary questions that were introduced in the 1985 National Family Violence Resurvey to deal with some of the criticisms.
3. Presents new data on factor structure, reliability, and validity based on the 1985 National Family Violence Resurvey and on data reported by a number of other investigators who have used the CTS."

R0bert

Hiya R0bert,

Sorry I haven't much time, but I'll bb later.

Anyway, I am not sure but I don't think the design and methodological problems of the CTS were overcome. I think your article precedes this one, but in any case - here are some interesting points:

http://www.xyonline.net/Evilmen.shtml

1. I don't see why the worst effects of DV - ie: women who are hospitalized or who die - should be left out. I don't see any reason why their suffering should be excluded. If running a campaign of 'Stop Hitting Women' only prevented one or two deaths - wouldn't that be worth it ?

2. Shove for shove (if under the CTS I shove you; and you shove me)surely the biggest and strongest of the two will do more damage. In fact, being smaller, I might shove you twice; but one shove from you might put me through the wall. So how does one then say that I was more violent to you, or you were more violent to me? Also, I might be heaps bigger or just fitter than you and maybe I could knock you into next week with one tap. Even though as far as we know, men in general out match women, maybe we're wrong. In some cases we are sure to be wrong (you being one example). We can't know.

3. One of the questions the writer in that article (link) asks is why men are seeking gender symmetry in violence, even against all available evidence (hospital admissions; shelter numbers; deaths). Why is it important? Why is it necessary ?

That writer also asks why, if men are concerned about violence against men, they are not expressing concern about the violence committed against men by other men.

For some reason women must be silenced - but men aren't really aiming to protect other men, are they.

I also wonder why men don't have shelters. I know that some womens shelters provide assistance; but why aren't more men turning up? Or alternatively, why aren't FR activists setting some up ?

cont'd

Btw - my personal opinion is that we will probably see more physical violence by women. The reason I think that is that as women are socialized to be more expressive and less demure, some are going to emulate some of the worst aspects of the dominant culture. They will see how power is used by those who hold it; and do same.

Maybe then the terms of the disagreement won't be one sex against another; but violent people versus non-violent...

Oh, and another thought. If men are victimized at the rates they claim, why is it that they never raised this before ? When did their victimization begin ?

Anyway, check back when I can - bye for now.

Pynchme, so you admit that feminism encourages violence against men. Thanks I've noted this.

pynchme, you talk some sense here, especially about increasing violence by women which I notice lately in the news and I see as a natural progression of equality. With regards to violence by men against men, it's not news as it's widely recognised. With regard to shelters, no man would be interested in further humiliation as society already assumes he is weak and pathetic for not being able to 'control his missus'.

But you have yet to answer these questions....

How is exclusively concentrating on domestic violence against women create a better outcome for women than concentrating on all domestic violence?

In the (however few in your opinion) situations where the cycle of violence is instigated and/or escalated by the female partner, leading to a male reaction which injures the female, doesn't education of these risks to the woman resulting from female behaviour in a relationship help reduce violence against women?

Do you not think it demonises all men to talk of this 'insidious' 'epidemic' of violence against women by men, and puts all men in the position of reds under the bed, or paedophiles (Which are everywhere. Any man with a camera at a beach, or any male in any job with contact with children is under suspicion). All these things add up to portray men, exclusively, in a very negative light. Society's most hated and most under suspicion. Sure the form is on the board, but these acts are not exclusively male, and the victims are not exclusively female.

I fear for young boys being brought up in this biassed view of what it is to be male. Slugs and snails vs Sugar and spice can be a very self-fulfilling prophecy.

No Steel,

I've hypothesized that as constraints are lifted, some women will follow the path by which many men define themselves - of solving problems with violence and retaliation.

Personally I would rather we all learn better ways of being; but so many men won't come to the party.

So, if so many men (and some women) admire traditional male attributes and behaviours - and you are not calling for those values to change - is there any reason why women shouldn't do the same?

Ok Suspect,

The whole point is that nobody should be "controling his missus", nor she him, in the first place. It isn't something to admire.

If men were really suffering from the effects of DV, they'd just be grateful to find refuge, safety and escape. If there were large numbers of male victims of DV, surely they'd want to get to safety for the sake of the children.

Focusing on DV for women helps. 1) If we deal with DV happening to women, at least we are focused where the effects are worst. 2) Let's say that there are as many victims of each sex (though why that's important I don't know) - what has the dominant (ie: patriarchal) society ever done about it? Nobody got busy until women started organizing shelters and whatnot. Even now, why are you not all busy building mens lodges, where they can get some respite from their abusive partners.

No it doesn't demonize all men to talk of violence. The men who commit violence need to be demonized.It doesn't demonize all men; it demonizes men who act violently and possibly, those who support their actions by failing to call it what it is.

I'm married; have a wonderful son and many male relatives and friends that I treasure. Do you think I would want to demonize them?
I'm sorry if you feel that everyone is typing all men including yourself as a paedo or a basher. However, the thing to do is what - tell everyone to shut up and put up with the actions of bashers and paedos?

Or is it better for men to condemn such behaviours loudly and clearly; and refuse to buy into the sort of masculinity that makes exploitation of the weak and vulnerable AOK.

You could, as other men have done, claim a masculinity that disowns exploitation and bullying.

Pynchme, I don't think CTS is perfect but I've not seen any indication that there is anything that comes near it for getting a grasp of the numbers involved.

1/ I don't want the worst effects of DV excluded but all to often DV descriptions are about all sorts of behaviour (unwanted questioning, control of finances, friends etc) combined with comments that it's primarily men who do DV. When the problems with that are demonstrated it then drops back to the extreme end. Rudd's statement which prompted this thread was in relation to any level of violence and that should apply to us all regardless of our gender.
2/ Shove for shove it will be a combination of capability and intent. Someone who has lost control or who thinks that they are fighting for their life might use full strength but capability does not always imply a choice to use it. Given that most male to female DV does not involve serious injury or death it's a safe bet that most people are not using everything they've got (thankfully).
3/ I don't believe that it's in the face of all available evidence so I can't go with that. As for the rest, I've been in the position of not being able to get any support to halk my ex's use of physical violence and so often the idea that men do more DV is used to avoid any attempt to tell women not to hit that it seems the only way to get violence against men by women taken seriously is to highlight the rates by women. I really don't care who hits more but I do care that all violence is condemmed. Also the idea of men being more violent than women in the home has been used quite extensively by some of the mums groups to try and avoid changes in family law that give dads better access to their kids, the old "protecting women and children" slogan.

To be continued

R0bert

Part 2

I suspect the issue would go away if paternalists and feminists stopped focussing on male to female violence and started focussing on violence regardless of the gender of the perpetrator. Even on this thread I wanted to avoid this discussion but the body count issue seemed to be important (I get that but think it holds us back as well).

Some men do speak out against male on male violence but the dynamic is different. If another male assaults me my complaints will be taken seriously by the authorities, if I find myself in a position where I feel I need to defend myself I can do so with only minimal risk of being treated as the aggressor.

I'm assuming that shelters are primarily intended for the extreme end of the spectrum and I think that we are already agreed that women outnumber men as victims at that end of the scale.

Also I think that public perceptions of DV where males are on the receiving end are such that it's rare to go public with that. We are still expected to be able to handle it or sort it out for ourselves or regarded as deserving it. It's a different dynamic. I suspect a male who removed children from the family home and went and stayed in a shelter would want very good proof of serious risk to the children.

By the way I'm appreciating your comments, thanks.

R0bert

Pynchme>"I've hypothesized that as constraints are lifted, some women will follow the path by which many men define themselves - of solving problems with violence and retaliation."

This is such bull!@#$.

1. What "constraints"? There are none. If there are you agreed with me, while contradicting yourself.

2. There is no such thing as a "path by which men define themselves". *

3. "Many men" and "some women"? This is already true. It's no "hypothesis".

4. There is no "following". * Women have always been like this. As indicated elsewhere, they've resoreted to forms of "violence and retaliation" that suit a weak physical stature (poison etc...).

* This is from common feminist discourse that requires men be blamed as the source of their troubles.

Pynchme>"No it doesn't demonize all men to talk of violence. The men who commit violence need to be demonized.It doesn't demonize all men;"

No one should be demonised. Period. All public statements by feminists and those pandering to them prove otherwise.

Pynchme>"You could, as other men have done, claim a masculinity that disowns exploitation and bullying."

You could, as other women have done, claim a feminity that disowns exploitation and sexism.

Pynchme,

'It isn't something to admire.'
a) I never said it was. b) That's irrelevant anyway.

If women cover up abuse, or stay in an abusive situation for any reason, that's considered a valid argument as to why this is an 'insidious epidemic', or 'the problem is even more widespread than figures suggest'. If men don't set up or go to shelters because they don't want to add to the humiliation they feel, that's just their own bad luck for accepting gender stereotypes. See, again, women are victims, men CANNOT be. You are perpetuating the very thing you are supposedly against.

' Nobody got busy until women started organizing shelters and whatnot.'
And good on them. But I don't see how then denying any female violence towards men exists to keep all the funding and feeling any depiction in the DV adverts of women being violent is blaming the victim is good. Victims get the dosh and only women can be victims, and defending the perpetuation of this myth ensures abused men will keep it to themselves, with no funding.

'I'm sorry if you feel that everyone is typing all men including yourself as a paedo or a basher.'
Add to that reckless drivers with small dicks, fat slobs Norm on the couch. Name me one government campaign directed at womens bad behaviour? Women are taking up and keeping smoking much more than men, but where are the women specific smoking adverts? Where are the depictions of violence in Lesbian couples, which is much more likely than in hetero couples?

' tell everyone to shut up '
I'm not telling anyone to shut up. Just stop with the gender bias. I'm for widening the scope, you're for narrowing the scope to include only violent men.

'You could, as other men have done, claim a masculinity that disowns exploitation and bullying.'
That's offensive. Where have I not done this?. You seem to deliberately twist the words of anyone who wants to widen the scope of the campaign as someone who wants to dismiss the campaign.

To all the naysayers that say it is so, so rare that men are victims of domestic violence...

200+ stories.

http://www.news.com.au/comments/0,23600,24397363-5007146,00.html

When are we going to stop this ridiculous gender segregated approach to the problem. Domestic violence is a problem for Families. It is so much more complex than evil all powerful man abuses saintly defenseless woman.

Pynchme, you'll find very few women participate in this debate. And thinking that relating to your work experiences will give you any credibility at all with the men on this forum is pure wishful thinking.

I've worked for some 30 years in public hospitals. Big and small. Though happily married with two big marvelous adult sons, relating my experiences of the severity of injuries on women by men has had me branded a man hating feminist with an agenda to label all men aggressive women bashers.

Men are severely injured and killed by OTHER MEN. Sadly, it is still more important to sock one to women, and feminists in particular, than it is to address the serious nature of violence perpertrated on men by other men. Both my sons have had incidences and have been victim of random opportunistic violence.

Robert, there are men who are abused by their female partners. You have a horrendous story. But the fact remains, there are still many women who end up dead at the hand of their partners. Just look at the news of the last couple of days.

Usual Suspect, it is not only humiliating for a man to admit to being the victim of domestic violence. It is for women as well.

There would not be a single woman, no matter what age, who does not personally know another woman who has been physically assaulted by her partner. In my mother's day it was wispered about.

Anansi, my experience was not particularly horrendous other than it highlights part of the problem with ignoring one side of an issue. People get blind to it, find ways to excuse it and assume extenuating circumstances when they do see it.

The number at the extreme ends of the scale are genuinely genderised but some men do end up dead at the hands of female partners. My next post will put some numbers to that. Thats an area where strength is a factor and possibly some flow on from maternal bias in the family law system. That does not men that no men are killed by female partners or seriously injured nor does it mean that we should ignore the less serious violence.

I suspect that most men know of other men who are physically abused by partners, the difference is that social attitudes treat that as some kind of joke. We still get TV adds where women assaulting men is shown in a favourable light.

I still don't get why we have campaigns against all types and levels of DV including controlling behaviours focussed on one gender yet when it comes to the crunch it is all about the higher levels of violence.

The little stuff grows into the big stuff. Women who hit male partners may be more likely to be seriously injured than those who don't (I don't know that enough research has been done on that yet to say the case is proven but there is some and it does make sense).

If we want to reduce violence by men we need to also get rid of the idea that men are legitimate targets of violence both by other men and by women.

Part 2 to follow

R0bert

Part 2

I was looking for numbers/rates relevant to Australia and found a PHD paper at http://eprints.utas.edu.au/1045/2/Bradfield_ch1.pdf which is looking at the treatment of women by the legal system who kill abusive partners. It appears to be written based on support for the idea that DV is highly genderised from what I've read so far.

Chapter one claims that 88.6% of homicides are committed by men and that when women do kill it's normally a family member who is the victim. AIC research refered to in the paper claims that male offenders killed their partners in 77.4% of homocides between current or former spouses. Genderised but not so much that we should completely ignore the other 22.6%.

The paper points out that other factors come into this as well, remote indiginous communities are more dangerous for spousal homocide (and deaths may be underreported) and that migrant males are more likely to kill female partners than australian born males (but that trend does not show for migrant females).
Philipino women in Australia are at 6 times greater risk than other women.

I don't like much of the commentary the author adds, it relies to much in my view on the genderised paradimes of DV at lower levels. The author looks at previous DV as a factor but of the stuff I've read so far only seems to consider a history of male violence in the relationship - that may be addressed elsewhere but I did not get that impression.

R0bert

Thanks for the link Robert.

Still concerning that in that same report there is evidence that domestic violence is decreasing, but that the number of women being killed by partners is increasing. Though the number of men killed at the hand of their spouses is not.

Read up on the reasons 'Why men kill'.

No matter which way anybody wants to twist, facts like '1/5 of all homicides are spousal homicides'. 'Women are more likely to be the victim than the offender'. 'The number of female victims is increasing' as opposed to 'male victims' and the overall incidence of DV. All unfortunate facts that still point to the experiences of people who meet the ambulances at ED and in ICU's. There are female victims most often at the hand of intimates, male victims at the hand of other men.

This in no way dimishes that there are other serious victims of crimes. It does not ignore other victims. But what is the agenda to dimish and downplay the effects of a large number of victims? 'An average of 3 killings per fortnight' is an alarming number in anybody's book surely.

Violence is genderised. Many more men resort to serious physical violence than do women. What is so hard to accept about that fact?

The violence perpetrated by a number of men comes at a huge public and private cost.

The gender of a dead body as the result of violence remains a dead body. The genders of the perpetrator and victim are facts that cannot be altered just because it doesn't suit any persons' agenda. Doesn't matter who reports on that with whatever agenda.

There is this core of men who insist that whatever applies to some men must apply to ALL men. Why is that? Not all Women think so. Feminist or otherwise. I've in my 50 years not met an all men hating woman. Regardless what her experiences have been with any individual man.

Anansi:"An average of 3 killings per fortnight' is an alarming number in anybody's book surely."

Yes it is and it deserves our intense consideration. Men are killing themselves at an average of 3 per DAY, yet prevention of suicide is given not even a fraction of the funding or publicity that the prevention of DV is given.

Whilst I don't for a second suggest condoning DV, the topic is given hugely more weight in Government policies than it warrants in comparison to other very serious problems. That is largely because the topic has been genderised politically, making it very difficult for any politician to discuss it in any way that might be seen unfavourably by women's groups. This has lead to definitions broadened to the point of being risible, thus allowing inflation of statistics with very dubious claims vis a vis prevalence.

The subject has also been hijacked by interest groups, such as single mothers advocacy groups, who use it as a lever to secure greater funding.

Yes, serious DV is a terrible thing, but most so-called DV is not. Some is quite normal raised voices on both sides or slamming of doors and the like. Painting it all equally black without shading might be great for those wanting to push a barrow, but it doesn't help in understanding or in arriving at a fair and just balance in dealing with it.

Anansi, for the most part those arguing for violence by women against men to be addressed in campaigns are not asking for violence by men against women to be diminished or downplayed. Some fringe types do but thats not what I'm asking for nor do I think it's representative of what most others want yet the claim is put over and over again.

"But what is the agenda to dimish and downplay the effects of a large number of victims?"

Why is the agenda to diminsh and downplay the effects of serious violence on a smaller but substantial number of victims?

I think the numbers are convincing for lower level DV, I also think that the refusal of those who don't want womens violence addressed at all is the major factor in highlighting it. Why equality - it's probably true and it seems the only way to get anything is to prove that it is true.

Even if we went with a factor of 10 times the levels of violence by men against women as the reverse (I know some claim more but that seems at about the high end of the "research based claims") why don't we see the occasional male victim and female perpetrator in taxpayer funded anti-DV campaigns.

No one ever seems to answer the question as to why the answer has to be no anti-violence message to women.

R0bert

'No one ever seems to answer the question as to why the answer has to be no anti-violence message to women.
'
Exactly. I think there would be no fuss at all, if even 1 out of 7 or so depictions of violence in the campaign showed a woman instigating it. Even if she ended up being injured more, and we still had the perpetuation of womens exclusive hold on victim status, at least it would add some responsibility for women in violent domestic disputes.

Some warning to women that if you start throwing glasses around somebody will get hurt, more likely you.
Currently we have the expectation that men, being more likely physically stronger, have the responsibility to measure their response to violence by women (under no circumstances can men hit women) so that nobody gets hurt. While women bare no responsibility at all for domestic disputes. They are free to yell and push and do whatever, but if a man does the same, he's put into the same category as a guy who kills his wife or puts her in hospital. And that's not demonising men?

Anansi,

How is exclusively concentrating on domestic violence by men against women create a better outcome for women than concentrating on all domestic violence?

In the (however few in your opinion) situations where the cycle of violence is instigated and/or escalated by the female partner, leading to a male reaction which injures the female, doesn't education of these risks to the woman resulting from female behaviour in a relationship help reduce violence against women?

'Violence is genderised. Many more men resort to serious physical violence than do women. What is so hard to accept about that fact? '

Even if the fact is accepted, it has no bearing on the argument. The campaign sites pushing and yelling as violence. I could equally say why do you find it so hard to accept the fact that women are violent.

Are you at all concerned about violence in lesbian relationships which is proportionately more common than in heterosexual relationships?

"No one ever seems to answer the question as to why the answer has to be no anti-violence message to women."

It absolutely should be.

I know of someone whose ex-partner is violent. It's true, he is — but she neglected to tell the cops that she beat his door down when she was pissed and threw punches at him. It was only when he was trying to throw her out, and she resisted, kicking and screaming, down the hallway, that he lost it and beat her up.

The guy's a deadbeat, and I understand this woman's anger — he won't see his child at all or contribute to her upbringing. But she not only hurt him physically, but set in train events that would lead to only him being punished.

Domestic violence begats more violence. The message should help people solve problems productively, and encourage personal responsibility. It should be gender neutral.

Hi R0bert - I'm appreciating the dialogue with you too. I have a link for you on violence in lesbian relationships - it's interesting reading. I'll post it when I can.

Anansi - great posts thank you. Great to see some posts by someone else who understands the issues.

Btw Veronika - the point about DV isn't so much the one off bash up (though of course that is assault, and the results might be dreadful); DV is characterized by a long, slow process of terror - of belittling; of frightening the less powerful person; isolating them from help and from the resources to get themselves help (like money; use of a vehicle or phone, and so on). The vast majority of Dv is about controlling the partner by exercising undue power over them.

Often the rules that the victim breaks are petty, created on the spot and capriciously enforced - for example, I knew of a woman (baby in tow) who was subjected to a long, slow work up to a full blown flogging because her spouse objected to the shape of the boiled pumpkin on his plate. is story was that he was "provoked". Or there is the story of the man who beat every female in his house because he lost his own poclet comb. On another occasion it was a key. These examples are not even unusual. The character of them as a whole however is quite different to other types of assault.

For everyone who thinks that DV should be swept under the carpet again, which generalizing it to "all violence" would do... Can any of you say what was happening for victims of violence (female or male) before the first shelters were opened by women in Australia in the 1970s?

That is - what was the (male) dominant society doing for ANY victim of domestic assault before feminists raised it as an issue and showed how it is different from assault by a stranger?

cont'd

cont'd

What were the courts doing? The police? The neighbours? The parents and in-laws ? The doctors and teachers and anyone else who might have noticed a bruise or a black eye or unusual absences... ? When we bury the effects for the majority - we push it back into the social scenery, where awful things become invisible even when they are in plain view. We are talking about systems that help DV to be perpetrated. Whatever victims we are talking about - we cannot afford to hide the effects on 85% of them.

http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/women_and_politics/suffr7.htm

Pynchme,

I take your point about long-term abuse. I also understand that throwing the dust cloth off female violence can lead to some violent men claiming provocation in defence of their own violence. But if it's true, if it happens, if men are getting physically hurt by women, then how can we ignore it? How can we justify — as feminists, who believe in equality — that some men are being harmed and haven't got the resources to seek help?

You say: "For everyone who thinks that DV should be swept under the carpet again, which generalizing it to "all violence" would do..."

Would generalising it to all violence sweep it under the carpet again? Why can't we trust the general public with the message: "Domestic violence happens. We usually think of it as male on female, and that happens, but women can also be violent. If you're a victim, go here for help." Or whatever. I don't think we need to generalise the message; in fact, we need to expand the message.

As it is, isn't the status quo sweeping the issue of female on male domestic violence under the carpet?

It is because feminism has excelled in uncovering domestic violence that we should be doing something to assist the men who are victims from it too. That will only happen when we proclaim from the rooftops that some women are violent to their partners.

Pynchme, when I talk about DV I'm talking about all abusive behaviour in a domestic situation which is as I understand it pretty much the message in the anti-DV camapigns (except that it is depicted as 100% genderised in those campaigns).

I think that power in the home comes in a lot of forms of which physical strength is but one. Power can come in pretty much any form where you have an edge or advantage over the other person. To focus on just physical strength does not do justice to the complexities of relationships. Physical strength is only significant where you are willing to use it against a partner or where the partner thinks that you are willing to use it against them.

Is there any reason why someone with a gift for cutting words and manipulative behaviour can't do the following to a stronger partner they know can't hit them?

"The long slow process of terror - of belittling; of frightening the less powerful person; isolating them from help and from the resources to get themselves help (like money; use of a vehicle or phone, and so on). The vast majority of Dv is about controlling the partner by exercising undue power over them."

I think that one of the problems with the DV research that shows DV to be genderised is that definitions for DV based on genderised assumptions (power in domestic situations, physical strength etc) and then gathers stats on that basis but does not spell out the underlying assumptions when results are presented to the public.

I appreciate many of the advances which have come from the work of feminism but sometimes that does not go far enough. Some are still working just to help women without seemingly thinking through the broader context and I think DV is one of those issues. Bringing violence against women to the fore has been very important, it's time for the next stage of working to reduce all violence.

Veronika, thanks for your comments.

R0bert

Btw, Pynchme is an American activist whose career probably depends on feminism continuing to exist. Activists like Pynchme often become involved in Australian domestic affairs by supporting NGOs here in Australia (and install/support/fund extremists in them, like our Bravehearts organisation).

Here are sockpuppets that actually mean something in terms of Australian sovereignty with implciations for our democratic process rather than the petty squabbles CJ Morgan finds is a good use of his time.

Steel Pynchme is discussing the issues politely with me and at least giving some reasons why inclusion of violence against men by women in anti-DV campaigns is so strongly opposed by some. I don't happen to agree with Pynchme in that but an opinions site where we agreed with everybody would be pretty boring.

Nothing I've read has lead me to think that Pynchme is basically dishonest or hates men so I think there is value in having the discussion. If nothing else others may start to pay attention to the difference between what they hear about DV and what the realities are.

I suspect that a lot who've heard all those stats about the overwhelming majority of DV being committed by men don't realise that the definitions of DV used to get those stats are genderised. Discussions liek this might help some to realise that and look a bit deeper.

Swapping insults across the fence with activists (if Pynchme is one) does not broaden anybodies thinking, extend compassion or change anybodies mind.

R0bert

Nothing wrong with activists. They've changed the world in all sorts of ways we benefit from daily.

If you mean she's got a sinister agenda, then I think you can rely on the posters here — certainly R0bert — to pinpoint that and hold their own against it.

It's a free country, thank god, and people can start a Nazi Lesbian Association as far as I'm concerned and lobby the government all they like. As long as good people do something, we'll be fine. Bravehearts is a case in point. Moderate forces have leaned on this organisation so that it CAN do its good work (and it does do good work) but it's idiotic and fallacious ideas about censorship are defeated.

Let's have more responsibility and action and less scare-mongering. In terms of DV, surely our goal is to make the public conversation HONEST. As Antiseptic said earlier, "Painting it all equally black without shading might be great for those wanting to push a barrow, but it doesn't help in understanding or in arriving at a fair and just balance in dealing with it.

Pynchme,

'For everyone who thinks that DV should be swept under the carpet again...'

'When we bury the effects for the majority '

'we cannot afford to hide the effects'

Oh get it through your thick skull nobody is trying to do this. How many times do we have to repeat ourselves? More males than females commit suicide. If we create a gender neutral campaign to stop suicide, that doesn't 'bury' or 'sweep under the carpet' male suicide in any way. Your constant assertions that including domestic violence by females in the campaign is hiding domestic violence buy men is irrational and illogical.

'That is - what was the (male) dominant society doing for ANY victim of domestic assault before feminists raised it as an issue and showed how it is different from assault by a stranger?'

Why is this relevant? So accrding to you, since feminists raised it as an issue, nobody except women should be protected from domestic violence. The all male 'patriachy' were all working as one to ensure domestic violence persisted because of their hatred of women, so now every man who is a victim of domestic violence, by virtue of his gender, should suffer the consequences.

Veronika I came across a paper by Michael Flood which covers some of the thinking around definitions and intepretation of results http://www.dvirc.org.au/PublicationsHub/PersonalSafetyFloodSummerNewsletter06.pdf

I consider him to be highly biased in the way he goes about the analysis and in his criticisms of mens groups but the paper is interesting. Some good points but I'd like to see him being more even handed and having more to say about the way the idea of genderisation of DV is misused rather than just attacking mens groups for pointing out aspects of symetry.

One very good point he makes is "Finally, in making public claims about the extent of violence against women or men, we must be careful and clear about exactly what we are claiming they have been subject to.". Thats something that I think is completely missing from most public comment on DV.

R0bert

Steel - are you using mushrooms? Anyway, no matter what I post about myself you can choose to disbelieve or denigrate it. There isn't one thing that you posted that describes me, but what or who I am is irrelevant. Only the issues under discussion matter.

Usual Suspect - of the royal "we". (Who is "we"?). You and truth don't share company often do you.

"More males than females commit suicide" <- Well more of us die because of partner violence. Does this make us even? Is this a contest? A race to the bottom ?

Yes indeed you are trying to hise the effects. The point of noting that feminists brought the issue to light - for ALL victims of DV and also child abuse - is that the dominant society could have and wouldn't. It has taken stridency, challenge and activism - making people uncomfortable, to have these issues recognized. Left as it was; there would still be no help for anyone.

Btw - Womens shelters and help lines respond to any caller, whether female or male.

Also, there are depression and suicide campaigns directed at men specifically though more women attempt suicide, more men complete it; and depression occurs in roughly equal numbers. Do you see any women sobbing and gnashing their teeth and generally kicking up a stink because a campaign of assistance is focused on men? No.

Anorexia is another example. Ages of people who suffer that disease are from 7 to 70; male and female, but MOST are young women. Should the campaign say - should the campaign stop mentioning young women ?

Instead of trying to shut women up talking about these topics, wouldn't your efforts be better directed at encouraging men to access the assistance that is available to them, if they need it, or in setting up some shelters specifically for men.

- and when you're speculating on why men don't seek assistance - ask yourself whose disapproval they dread. It's the disapproval of other men. That's the masculinity issue to which some energy should be directed.

Thanks Veronika - Sok I don't have any sinister agenda.

I don't even know what agenda I could have that could be detrimental to anyone.

R0bert - g'day -

So what about it is so biased re: mens groups? Which fact do you dispute ? Or, do you want to explain some what the purposes of the mens groups are - like why do some say that anorexia doesn't exist? How does that help men?

I'll post that link I mentioned when I am back at my own computer in a few days or so.

Pynchme, Flood seems to go for just the negative aspects of the mens groups. If there are two intepretations of motivations he seem to promote the more negative one. He diss's mens groups time after time but I've not yet seen any negative comment from him directed at the single mums groups who seem to display similar characteristics. some fothe single mums have played perceptions of men as abusers quite ruthlessly to get better financial outcomes for women.

I was involved in one group for a while. I was told about it by a relative when it became obvious that my ex was trying to set things up for the 80/20 plan. They were lifesavers in terms of putting me in contact with resources, letting me know that I was not alone and seeing others who had got through the process OK.

Sometimes people would say things I disagreed with but at the leadership level and for most of the men involved it was always about a fair go not an unfair advantage. There was plenty of comment on those men who do the wrong thing making it harder for the ones doing the right thing. The type of culture Flood and others try and portray just did not exist in the group I was in.

I don't know if it's changed in recent years and my experience is just hearsay but I've been told of men who have been told by shelters that they don't have the facilities to accommodate men and children together.

My impression of the help lines and other resources which target women is that they are generally staffed by people who have been trained in the paradime of male as abuser and female as victim and are not much use to men seeking help with an abusive spouse. I've not called any help lines but have experienced very direct and clear negation of my ex's violence from multiple counselling services.

Services advertised as being focussed towards women staffed by people who see that as their role are not really much use for men.

R0bert

Pynchme:"more of us die because of partner violence. "

As I pointed out earlier, this occurs at a rate less than a tenth that of male suicide, yet there is massive funding and publicity given to demonising men as "violent" toward women and hardly anything is given to assist men to cope with the things that drive them to the desperate point of suicide. Women rarely "succeed" at suicide, largely because they don't genuinely attempt it; rather using the attempt as leverage to gain a sympathetic hearing for whatever they see as their problems. Given the massive funding for "women's issues", they're perfectly justified in expecting such an outcome.

One of the significant stressors is the sense that one has no support and is battling intractable problems alone. As a man who has been the victim of State-inflicted violence instigated by my ex-wife, I abhor the double standard that is practised and repudiate your claim of some higher moral standard. The very serious damage suffered by a few is used as a justification for broad-ranging assaults on many, regardless of their circumstances other than their lack of female genitalia.

If you were genuinely interested in an equitable outcome for all, you'd be yelling just as loudly about the massive toll of men as you do about the comparatively small number of women who are victims. Instead, you try to minimise the problem that apply to men and exaggerate those faced by women. Hypocrisy is never something to be proud of.

pynchme,

'Who is "we"?'
Anyone interested in stopping domestic violence. Maybe not yourself, as you are interested in only stopping domestic violence by men perpertrated against women, and think to include any other complexity than that is 'hiding' domestic violence.

'Is this a contest?'
Again, trying to misrepresent my argument. It was an analogy.

'Yes indeed you are trying to hise the effects.'
No I'm not. Where have I called for this? Nasty piece of work you are. For what purpose you are trying to cloud the issue with such lies I don't know.

'The point of noting that feminists brought the issue to light -is that the dominant society could have and wouldn't'
Why is this relevant? I'd really like to know.

'there are depression and suicide campaigns directed at men specifically'
Please show evidence of this?

'Do you see any women sobbing and gnashing their teeth...'.
Nice characature. Would you like it applied to the original women who fought for recognition/help for women in this area? I've never seen the supposed campaign on suicide, and it's definately not a nation wide TV campaign. The effect of such a campaign wouldn't set up a prejudice that women can not be 'bad' and men can not be 'victims'. It's probably a bad analogy I used as there is no conflict, and treating each party's responsibility doesn't come into it.

But the analogy, before you twisted it, was about how a campaign that concerntrated on all suicide rather than just suicide by males could be misconstrued as hiding suicide by males?

'Instead of trying to shut women up'
Again with the slander. You just cant quite answer how wanting an honest representation of the complexity of domestic violence can be misconstrued as shutting women up. I really would love to hear a logical and rational argument to explain this.

'setting up some shelters specifically for men.'
Why do we need two campaigns and shelters for men and women. Why does everything have to be gender segregated?

'It's the disapproval of other men.'
That's just your opinion. I disagree.

Hi all,
Just a quick post after reading most of the comments.
I can't promise to post here more than once or twice as I'm lacking the time atm.

I really don't see why, principally, if there is evidence that men are victims of DV, these male victims can't be included in DV campaigns.

If, roughly, 80% of women are victims of DV and 20% are male victims, then perhaps the funding available for campaigns, safe houses etc could be shared proportionally.
80% Of the campaign and funding would be aimed at female victims specifically, and 20% at male victims.

Perhaps a little less than 20% because we would also have to take into account the severity of injuries as there are significant risks to life when someone is a victim of physical injuries.
The most injured party, the ones more in danger and at bigger risk should benefit most.

There is no doubt that women are under far bigger danger of physical injury caused by men than vice versa.
As Yvonne and others have said, one needs only to look around in hospitals to see the evidence of that.

And perhaps a percentage of each could go on uni-sex campaigns, where the aim is to campaign against ALL forms of domestic violence.

Pynchme, it's pointless even attempting to debate male violence issues with "some" people here. Other people here can debate the issues intelligently from all perspectives.

There are "some" very bitter people here who feel powerless and victimised.

Misogyny has a firm hold on this forum, primarily because only a small handful of women come here, and the overall culture of this site is one that attracts primarily conservative, old fashioned men.

Many men, even in these modern times, prefer women who are obedient and subservient. There's still a few throwbacks who live with 18th century values, and unfortunately some of them seem to inhabit this OLO site.

It's pointless to engage with some people here. They are experts with the sexist put downs and twisting of debating points, just look at antiseptic's childish put downs in this thread and other threads. He doesn't understand how inane it sounds. There's some people here who are great to debate with.

SallyG,

Please give evidence of this 'misogyny', or men on OLO who 'prefer women who are obedient and subservient', or use 'sexist put downs '.

The only ' twisting of debating points,' here is pynchme deciding that anyone who wants to include violence by women in DV adverts is trying to cover up domestic violence by men.

I cant fathom how pynchme's whole last post was all about twisting my words, and accusing me of trying to hide domestic violence by women, and then you come on here and call people misogynists and defending pynchme on the basis of people twisting Her words. Unbelievable.

SallyG:"Misogyny has a firm hold on this forum, primarily because only a small handful of women come here, and the overall culture of this site is one that attracts primarily conservative, old fashioned men."

Translation: "Come see the violence inherent in the system. Help, help, I'm being repressed" (with apologies to Monty Python). You really are quite funny when you get all radfem you know.

SallyG:"They are experts with the sexist put downs and twisting of debating points, just look at antiseptic's childish put downs in this thread and other threads. He doesn't understand how inane it sounds."

This from the person who refuses to engage on the facts. Inane much, hon?

BTW, I'll let you know when you manage to produce something approaching a debating point if you like. It's obviously not something you've been able to figure out for yourself.

Celivia, as always you're a voice of reason shining through the hysterical outpourings of some of the less well-endowed intellectually. All that any of the men posting on this topic have asked is that the scope of such programs should be inclusive, not exclusive based on gender. I'd only add that I'd widen the scope of such campaigns still further to include ALL violence and exclude the non-violent acts that dilute the definitions to meaninglessness currently.

I've never understood why some people consider intimate partner violence to be somehow qualitatively different to being bashed in the street.

Apologies - been at a conference and not checked in for a while but now having caught up here I'm going to address the last remark:

"I've never understood why some people consider intimate partner violence to be somehow qualitatively different to being bashed in the street."

Having been involved in both here's what I think: no matter what our culture most of us subscribe in some way to the "my home is my refuge" idea. Home is where we can barricade the doors, or laager in the wagons to keep out the violence that may be being waged on the streets. Its the place we look forward to escaping to from outsiders. Predominantly, however, its the place we envisage in which our children will always be safe. Where we can protect them and nurture them and make the often scary world outside recede for them.

Domestic violence ensures that there is no escape. It means we are constantly in a state of tense, adrenelin-pulsing fear.It means that we can't protect our children. It ensures we feel that at the basic level of being able to protect those who depend on us we are failures. We add to our physical fear the fear that our children will lose all respect and faith not just in us but in the world.

If our kids are bullied at school, or fall over in the playground, or dread exams, or witness accidents, or fall prey to predators out on the streets, their home should be a place they want to go to feel safe. Domestic violence robs them of this basic right. As it does those who experience it from their partners.

O.K., so that is an emotional answer. Biologically speaking the purpose of adrenelin is aid us in emergency situations providing the ability for the much-vaunted fright or flight response. Out bodies cannot cope with huge amounts of this chemical flooding our systems constantly. It leads to chemical imbalances which manifest in dozens of ways. Domestic violence - whether we are participants or witnesses - ensures these imbalances proliferate.

Romany, that's NOT an "emotional" answer. What you speak is truth and fact.

Antiseptic says he can't see the difference between street and domestic violence (he's written that), and therein lies his misogyny . *But* I'm sure he's not so inane and unintelligent that he *really* can't see the difference. As usual, he's playing games in his inane posts. He thinks it's smart to call female strangers who don't share his opinions "hon", and he uses other such inane attempted put downs on other threads regularly. That's the way misogynists write. He ALWAYS resorts to personal attack, then complains when people reply in kind. His behaviour speaks for itself.

'Antiseptic says he can't see the difference between street and domestic violence (he's written that), and therein lies his misogyny .'

Seeing violence as violence regardless of the setting = misogyny.

That's a pretty big stretch.

I do however agree with Romany's explination of the difference. Though I wont again have the temerity to address her directly, after already been burned for that before. (Romany has a strict code where if she posts to another poster, one is not allowed to address those comments. Perhaps she made an exception for herself with anti in this case)

Romany:"their home should be a place they want to go to feel safe"
Which is reasonable, but so is an expectation of being able to go out at night without risking being bashed for looking the wrong way at someone. I still see no qualitative difference. Besides, we're talking about intimate partner violence, not violence directed at children. Conflating the interests of children with the interests of just one of their parents is one of the significant failures of the misandric DV campaigns.

SallyG:"He thinks it's smart to call female strangers who don't share his opinions "hon""

"Smart" hon? I use the term regularly with all sorts of women I don't know. I also call men I don't know "mate". Somehow, I don't find it surprising that few people call you "hon", however.

BTW, hon, your entire post was an ad hominem directed at me. Poor thing, you must be hurting.

Antiseptic,
Romany is correct to say that children are victims of domestic violence, too.
I can imagine how they feel when they have to witness violence against someone they love by someone else they love.
You only have to google ‘domestic violence and children’ and a myriad of links will come up to tell you that children are the victims of domestic violence, too. It’s impossible to deny this.
Why do you think we protect children from violent movies by M-rating them? DV happens between the people that they love, which is likely to harm them more than a movie about strangers.

http://www.medicineau.net.au/clinical/paediatrics/paediatric2277.html
”At Child and Family Health we see many children who are referred because of attention/concentration problems, anxiety, depression, school refusal, aggression, sleep disturbances, self harming behaviours, continence problems, and others. In working with those children and their families, in many cases, it becomes clear that these referring problems are some of the symptoms of the compounded impact of domestic abuse within the child’s family.”

If the info from the article by Michael Flood I link to is correct, then addressing DV male victims will have only a minimal effect on reducing the violence experienced by men overall, but will have a much bigger effect on violence experienced by women.

” While from victimisation surveys, one-third of violence against women was domestic, versus less than 1 percent of violence against men.”
http://www.xyonline.net/husbandbattering.shtml
So when UsualSuspect thinks that ALL violence should be addressed, not domestic violence specifically, I understand where he comes from- from a male POV.
For males it would probably more effective to address all violence as a whole.

But for women such specific campaign DOES make sense, since females are by far more the victims in their own homes than males are, the positive effect a DV violence campaign will have on their safety makes such specific campaign worthwhile.

So, a campaign about domestic violence specifically, rather than campaigning against all violence is justified when you take into account that such a large proportion of not only women, but children as well, are victimised by it.

Celivia:"a myriad of links will come up to tell you that children are the victims of domestic violence, too"

I'm not disputing that, but this thread is discussing the subject of violence against women, as Rudd stated it.

Celivia:"such a large proportion of not only women, but children as well, are victimised by it"

If you regard that proportion as large, you must think the number of male victims of violence, at nearly 3 times as large, is positively gargantuan. If the issue of violence against women is so significant as to require the massive spending and advertising, then the issue of violence against men should be worth 3 times as much in a society that is truly egalitarian?

If, OTOH, you take the position that women are more deserving of a sense of safety than men are, your comment makes perfect sense.

Celivia's comments deserve repeating:

"But for women such specific campaign DOES make sense, since females are by far more the victims in their own homes than males are, the positive effect a DV violence campaign will have on their safety makes such specific campaign worthwhile.

So, a campaign about domestic violence specifically, rather than campaigning against all violence is justified when you take into account that such a large proportion of not only women, but children as well, are victimised by it."

Where do you go if home becomes a place of terror? I have lived this nightmare, I will not be silenced simply because a few men don't like women speaking up about their experiences and their opinions.

Consider this:

"The number of unwanted or unplanned pregnancies and terminations is higher among women experiencing domestic violence. Pregnancy itself is a time of heightened risk and the abdomen is targeted more frequently and more severely in pregnant women. The Women's Safety Australia survey found that, of all the women who reported violence occurring at some time in their lives, 42% were pregnant at the time. Twenty per cent reported that violence occurred for the first time during the pregnancy, although the strongest predictor of violence occurring during pregnancy is a prior history of abuse. Furthermore, women abused during pregnancy are at even greater risk of violence in the postpartum period."

http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/173_08_161000/astbury/astbury.html

Just because it is violence in the home and mostly effects women does not make it of any less import than street muggings or pub brawls, in fact it is worse. How appalling that children and pregnant women are abused, why don't more men speak out about this? I know that the few who do, like Michael Flood are derided. Why should I as a poster to these forums be subjected to such denigration for simply talking about my experiences? Seems to me, that certain men are only interested in silencing women. Why?

Cevilia,

I said all DOMESTIC violence should be included, not all violence.
You have misquoted and misrepresented my position.

I believe it is dangerous to deny women's responsibility in the escalation of violence in domestic disputes, regardless of who is more likely seriously injured.

Our society can find humour in women screaming abuse, throwing plates, kicking men in the groin or slapping men in the face, as if that's a 'spirited' woman. But a man pushing or yelling at a woman is put in the same bucket now as putting her in hospital.

So women are brought up thinking that they are allowed to lose control of themselves and throw their full, most violent verbal and physical attack into a domestic dispute, but a man must keep a cool head, control his temper in an emotionally charged environment and is made soley responsible for the safety of all involved. Remember the message 'under no circumstances' can a man use violence, not even to protect himself.

It's a pretty unrealistic expectation to put on men. Either that, or it is a demonisation of men to portray them as the sole aggressors in all domestic disputes.

As veronika said,
'Let's have more responsibility and action and less scare-mongering. In terms of DV, surely our goal is to make the public conversation HONEST.

As Antiseptic said "Painting it all equally black without shading might be great for those wanting to push a barrow, but it doesn't help in understanding or in arriving at a fair and just balance in dealing with it.'"

As Robert says...

'I still don't get why we have campaigns against all types and levels of DV including controlling behaviours focussed on one gender yet when it comes to the crunch it is all about the higher levels of violence.

The little stuff grows into the big stuff. Women who hit male partners may be more likely to be seriously injured than those who don't '

Fractelle,
Good on you for speaking out about the DV you had to endure, I can only imagine how hard that must be.
And the cases of the abuse of pregnant women are appalling acts by cowards.

US,
”I said all DOMESTIC violence should be included, not all violence.”
Sorry US, I got yours and Antiseptic mixed up and didn’t realise that you disagreed with Antiseptic.

As I said, I don’t have problems with including male DV victims proportionally.
I just question whether using the available ad space to address male DV only if your purpose is to reduce violence against men, because DV for men is such a tiny proportion of ALL the violence against men. Perhaps for men it would be more effective to address ALL violence against men including DV.

For women, addressing DV specifically would have more of an effect than for men since women are abused inside their home in far larger numbers than men are- who are abused more outside their home by other men.

It would be up to men to decide how to use available ad space most effectively- and if they figure that spending it all on reducing the 1% of DV by women against them rather than on reducing the remaining 99% of violence by men, then I suppose they are free to do so.

”I believe it is dangerous to deny women's responsibility…”
OK I can agree that violent women need to take responsibility for their actions. That’s why DV against men can have a place in a campaign- but not by blowing it out of proportion. It remains a small number.

Continued

“…regardless of who is more likely seriously injured.”
I disagree with this part of the sentence.
Are you saying you warrant equal attention to a victim whose injury needs little band-aid and a victim who ends up in hospital suffering internal bleeding and broken bones?
I think the severity of injury does need to be taken into account.
As Antiseptic said, “arriving at a fair and just balance in dealing with it”. The key word is indeed, balance- on both sides.

”…it is dangerous to deny women's responsibility in the escalation of violence in domestic disputes…”
OK I can agree with that part of your sentence and is something that should shine through some of the DV ads.

“…regardless of who is more likely seriously injured.”
But I disagree with this part.
That sounds like you want to warrant equal attention and ad space to a victim whose injury needs a band-aid and a victim who ends up in hospital suffering internal bleeding and broken bones.

“Women who hit male partners may be more likely to be seriously injured than those who don't”
True, I agree, and the same goes for men who hit other men, and women who hit other women in case of same-sex relationships.

I think when the “higher levels of violence” puts victims in hospital this should be getting priority. The other forms, e.g. controlling behaviours should get attention too but I suppose a lot depends on funding that’s available and we need to make choices about what to prioritise.

Fractelle,

>'I will not be silenced', ' men don't like women speaking up about their experiences '.

>' subjected to such denigration' 'certain men are only interested in silencing women. Why?'

You've talked a lot recently about 'bullying' and a general 'level of vitriol that if it was physical would be considered violence', and added to that your comments here. Not one poster has tried to silence you, has said they want the campaign stopped, or denigrated you. There is simply no evidence for all these assertions you keep making. I am actually starting to think you're not in a very good place at the moment, as your reaction can not be explained and is seeming more irrational and hysterical on any topic.

Granted you have experienced DV and you find it an emotional topic. But if this is the case you would think you would have some empathy for robert, and myself who obviously also feel strongly about it for good reason. Robert has related his experiences. I have not, as I learnt some time ago how personal information is used against me on OLO. So since I don't want personal attacks, I refuse to give amunition to those like CJ and Romany, and even yourself.

But instead, you decide to offensively twist the motives of anyone who wants an honest representation of men and womens roles in domestic violence. You are as bad as pynchme. Nobody is trying to silence anything. I for one, just want some recognition for male victims, and some education for women not to contribute to a cycle of violence that could well see them injured. An honest dealing with a complex problem. Now you can keep trying to twist that into people denigrating you or silencing you or silencing women, but you're the one who will come out looking pretty stupid.

"An honest representation of mens' and womens' roles in domestic violence"? So, let's get "honest". Close to all domestic violence is committed by MALES. Ask ANY police officer who specialises in domestic violence work. It's not rocket science. I'll repeat it for the mentally challenged; close to all domestic violence is committed by MALES: Males against males, males against kids, males against females, and yes..even males against animals. MALES are the culprits. Only a tiny, tiny percentage of domestic violence is committed by females; just ask any attending police officer.

Does this mean NO females commit domestic violence? Of course NOT. Anyone without a barrow to push KNOWS the problem is primarily MALE violence. Just like it is in the broad society. It's primarily MALES who do the bank robbing, street assaults, raping, intimidating and weapon offences; that's why the prison population for violent crime is utterly DOMINATED by males, it always has been.

Yet we still, in this day and age, have neanderthal throwbacks saying "she made me do it". Men have often blamed women for their own rapes, assaults and murders.. "she made me do it"! Even on this forum, I've noticed if people don't agree with the line put by some males here on female related topics, then they are assumed to be female and they are then targeted for personal comments. If they reply using the same type of language, they are further targeted and are "blamed".

There's something very strange and defensive about a "few" of the males here. ALL domestic violence should be inclusive in discussion, but that needs to be accompanied by the recognition that almost ALL domestic violence is committed by MALES, unless you're of the persuasion of "she 'made' me do it, she's to blame for me raping/bashing her". I get the feeling there may be a few of those types here, to varying degrees

phillips:"let's get "honest". Close to all domestic violence is committed by MALES"

So much for honesty. At least your record's intact in that regard.

samsung,

'something very strange and defensive about a "few" of the males'

'to blame for me raping/bashing her". I get the feeling there may be a few of those types here, to varying degrees'

What a cowardly little post. If you're going to cast disgusting aspersions on people at least have the courage to name them. I notice you don't cast any aspersions on Celivia or Veronika who have agreed with a lot of what myself and robert have said. Your post is extremely offensive.

Notice none of the males here you denigrate so much are asking yourself, fractelle, pynchme what have they got to hide when they are so afraid to have even the tiniest discussion of violence by women in domestic disputes in the campaign.

'Close to all domestic violence is committed by MALES. Ask ANY police officer '

From
http://www.news.com.au/comments/0,23600,24397363-5007146,00.html

'As a police officer for 18+ years I have taken as many DV Orders for men as I have for women. The women are very shocked when given the paperwork, thinking the DV rules only applied to men. DV is certainly a huge problem and I never think of it as female victims only. They are just as bad sadly. '

'I went to the police to report the abuse and was told that "we know it happens but let's face it you should be able to take care of yourself"'

'My grandfather was in a terribly violent marriage suffering abuse day after day...There is no way he would go anywhere for help. He was stuck between social mores of sticking up for his wife (so I couldn't say anything), and 'being the man of the house'. When I raised it with him privately he asked, somewhat helplessly, 'well what am I to do?' I hate these 'Violence against women, Australia says No' campaigns...Not because it isn't a very serious issue... But I can't help thinking is it ever ok to be violent without serious provocation? That campaign just served to reinforce those stereotypes that we so desperately need to challenge.'

Antiseptic, if you define Domestic Violence as violence by men against women in a spousal relationship then samsung is telling the truth. If we are talking about the kind of ongoing systematic controlling abuse of the other party then I've not seen independant research either way. If it's just about physical strength then probably, if it's about the ability to make cutting comments, to isolate a partner and wage a campaign of emotional harm in the home against them then I very much doubt it.

If we are talking about DV the way it's portrayed in the governments campaigns where it's an unwelcome question, it's an intrusive comment on choice of clothes, it's a raised voice, it's a shove or even a hit then samsung is on a whole different topic and will need to keep repeating his mantra to himself "close to all domestic violence is committed by MALES: ...".

It's simple, those who want to only focus on a particular form of DV, those who think point scoring against males, those who don't care about the male victims, those who don't care about the women who are hurt unnecessarily will support a 100% genderised portrayal of DV in government campaigns.

Those who want DV reduced regardless of it's type or severity, those who don't think any victim should be left to rot because of their gender, those who think we could do better by those women who hit and get hurt when they are hit back will support a message against all spousal violence and then work on the best way to manage that message so that the various needs are met.

Fractelle, I'm normally a big fan of yours but your claim that certain men are trying to silence women is insulting to those of us calling for some response to violence against men. If it's specific individuals please identify them and where those attempts to silence women have occurred. I don't wish to hurt you further but neither do I think it appropriate to be silenced because the topic is hurtful to you.

R0bert

Thank you Samsung for your input.

Celivia, Fractelle and Veronika thanks too.

These discussions on DV affect me terribly. I've worked in major public hospitals in ICU. I've looked after a number of women with totally fractured pelvises, smashed faces requiring ventilation, multiple serious internal injuries. I've seen their men sobbing at their beds: saying 'sorry, sorry, I love you.' It is distressing how many of these women do not want to press charges even when strongly supported by attending police. It is distressing to see how much they want to believe their own responsibility for suffering these injuries.

In all my years, I've looked after one man, one, with serious injuries. He had multiple stab wounds. His wife was dead though, she didn't survive the fight.

It is distressing how many men still think that provocation is a defence for serious violence.

In criminal law, the amount of violence that a person uses against another to 'protect oneself' has to be of the same level. Beating a person into hospital because another person was verbally offensive or threw objects around doesn't work in a pub brawl.

The argument that a woman should not get verbally abusive, or throw plates or what not, because she is likely to then get a hiding, makes my skin crawl.

Women are critised for staying in violent homes. Why didn't she leave? Why does a man stay with a violent woman? Why is it understandable that he beats her up, but not when a woman does not leave a violent partner?

There is no excuse for offensive behaviour, verbal abuse or taunting. Just because there isn't, doesn't mean that the perpetrator of that behviour 'deserves' what is coming to them.

Antiseptic's comment: <I've never understood why some people consider intimate partner violence to be somehow qualitatively different to being bashed in the street .> demonstrates that he has no idea what DV is about. He'd have no problem playing happy couples with somebody who bashes him up and have sex with them next week after saying 'sorry hon, I got a bit emotional'.

R0bert:
"Fractelle, I'm normally a big fan of yours but your claim that certain men are trying to silence women is insulting to those of us calling for some response to violence against men. If it's specific individuals please identify them and where those attempts to silence women have occurred."

If anyone has been following the DV threads they will know who has and who hasn't been denigrating female posters. I am not going to write "except for R0bert, or SJF" every freakin' time I post. I assume most readers to have the intelligence to note who is abusive and who isn't.

There is not a single poster here who could be remotely described as a 'feminazi' or 'man-hater' yet these terms are trotted out regularly by HRS, Usual Suspect, Runner, Antiseptic to name a few. As a result I don't even read these posters anymore, if they do write something valid, too bad, because of the abuse I protect myself from them, by not responding (silenced) to them. I have tried using humour in the past, but why can't I just say what I think?

I should not have to preface EVERYTHING I say with: "but this happens to a small percentage of men too" or "I am not a man hater" or "I know men get a rough deal in the family courts too" BEFORE I even express my POV or valid experience. My abusive ex-husband used verbal abuse and psychological games even more than physical violence, as a result I am sensitive to techniques used to trivialise the female experience.

Do I have to write the above EVERYTIME I post? DV is a huge problem, just because women actually mention it doesn't mean they are insulting ALL men.

If so, then I am being silenced.

Cont’d

Cont’d

Violence happens: For men it is more likely to be outside the home and for women it is more likely to be within the home - a place which is supposed to be where we are safe.

Consider the following from the ABS:

VIOLENCE BY CURRENT PARTNERS

People who experienced violence from their current partner were more likely to experience physical, rather than sexual, violence.
• Since the age of 15, 0.9% (68,100) of men and 2.1% (160,100) of women experienced current partner violence
VIOLENCE BY PREVIOUS PARTNERS

Since the age of 15, people were more likely to have experienced violence from a previous partner than from a current partner.
• 4.9% (367,300) of men experienced violence from a previous partner compared to 15% (1,135,500) of women

• 32% (368,300) of women and 40% (146,500) of men who had ever experienced violence by their previous partner said there had only been one incident

• 59% (667,900) of women who experienced violence by a previous partner were pregnant at some time during the relationship; of these, 36% (239,800) reported that violence occurred during a pregnancy and 17% (112,000) experienced violence for the first time when they were pregnant

• 61% (822,500) of persons who experienced violence by a previous partner reported that they had children in their care at some time during the relationship and 36% (489,400) said that these children had witnessed the violence.

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mf/4906.0

Now the figures are interesting at least twice as many women are abused as are men by their current partner.

More violence occurs by an ex-partner.

For women it is three times the number than for men.

Interestingly in cases of only one single event of violence, women outnumber men 32% compared to 40% for men. A small but significant statistic - but as it was only one time, it can be considered that women after being violent do not continue with it, whereas men are more likely to continue with violence. I think this subtlety will be lost on certain people.

Con'td

Cont’d

Finally, the stats show numbers escalate if the woman is pregnant and are also high if children are in residence.

Yes, I know some women abuse children too. But this topic is headed:
"Violence against women and absolute statements."

NOT

"Violence against men and absolute statements."

Start a topic about violence against men but remember that most violence against men is committed by other men. Something I have pointed out before along with the fact that laws are set by a majority of men - not women. Women are still a minority in places of power. Not that I am saying things would be better - just that both men and women would be equally accountable.

“A 1995 study from the University of Sydney's Institute of Criminology which shows that the most common form of violence is committed by men against men -- on the streets, in pub brawls, gay bashing and school yard bullying. Institute figures also reveal that men commit 91% of homicides, 90% of assaults and nearly all sexual assaults and robberies with violence.

Male violence against men and women is the real story"

“As men, we have an obligation and responsibility to look at male violence, not only for the sake of women, but for our own health and well-being. The truth is that men's inability to talk, to admit weakness, to disclose vulnerability, or to feel comfortable in a non-dominant role are successful tactics of power, but they're also our undoing. But the terrible reality of male violence seems a pill too bitter for some men to swallow."

Michael Flood

Fractelle:"There is not a single poster here who could be remotely described as a 'feminazi' or 'man-hater' yet these terms are trotted out regularly by HRS, Usual Suspect, Runner, Antiseptic to name a few"

I can't recall ever using the term "feminazi" and I've confined my use of the term "man-hater" to those obviously afflicted with the disease.

What I've seen demonstrated here, time after time, is the pack-bullying behaviour of women. Another thread has a tag team effort of three women, all of whom have contributed nothing other than abuse of myself, including demanding that I provide my identity. My failure to comply with their demands has lead to all sorts of abuse.

I've seen similar pack-bullying behaviour time after time in real life when women think they can get away with it. Ask any young man and he'll tell you all about the pack-bullying behaviour of groups of young women "playing to the crowd".

On the other hand, I've not seen anything from the men here that could remotely fit your claim of an attempt to "silence" you or anyone else. All that any of us have asked is that the discussion should be inclusive of the violence against men, which creates approximately 3 times as many victims as violence against women.

I still repudiate your claim of a qualitative difference between the two and your attempt to claim "ownership" of the children on behalf of women. In my experience, domestic dominance games are often initiated by women, who then cry foul if the situation deteriorates. The fact that men are physically stronger does not give women carte blanche to be abusive or to attempt to coerce them. In the heat of the moment, things happen that are often regretted, yet it is inevitably the male who is held accountable, while the female is deemed to be not merely blameless, but hapless. How degrading for everyone involved.

Fractelle, the title is relevant because the thread was opened in response to the lengths the PM went to in his statements referenced at the start of the thread. It's moved on somewhat from the original point but that happens. Part of the original point was why only speak about violence against women, rather speak against all violence. If the situation warrants a gender specific comment find the opportunity elsewhere to cover the rest.

The issue of rates of violence was pushed into the discussion because of the view that because the body count of women is higher men should get nothing (my phrasing but thats how it comes across). I'd rather we spend less time on body counts, definitions of DV etc and work to stop all violence but the message from those supporting the status quo seems to be because they define DV in a certain way they can then say that almost all DV is committed by men against women and therefore nothing should be done to stop violence by women against men and even trying to is somehow silencing women.

It's a winner takes it all approach that hurts everybody involved. It leaves men who are subject to violence by partners with nowhere to turn except to suffer in silence or try and sort it out for themselves. It gets women hurt when a partner does sort it out for himself and it leaves kids exposed to violence that maybe could be stopped.

I doubt very much that campaigns will ever have much impact on the perpetrators, they may though change the expectations of victims, friends and family, support services and the like. Just as women are much more able to seek support when they have an abusive partner thanks to the public profile of violence against women I'd like to see men having the same opportunities regardless of which set of statistics you happen to prefer.

R0bert

Pynch: 'there are depression and suicide campaigns directed at men specifically'
Usual Suspect: Please show evidence of this?

Campaigns for men:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/depression/campaign-to-tackle-rural-depression/2006/06/29/1151174308787.html

Some work by Beyond Blue on depression (several campaigns) and some directed at men in rural areas:

http://www.beyondblue.org.au/index.aspx?link_id=105.903 - range of posters and do you recall the adverts featuring Gary McDonald and Jeff Kennett:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/depression/success-v-stress/2006/06/28/1151174265286.html

http://www2.youthbeyondblue.com/index.aspx?link_id=9.234&oid=773

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=142714

get a Life - from Beyond Blue

http://www.theage.com.au/news/depression/campaign-to-tackle-rural-depression/2006/06/29/1151174308787.html

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:9K6dQ7H_DcMJ:www.rdaa.com.au/uploaded_documents/Beyond%2520Blue%2520and%2520RDAA%2520launch%2520--%2520media%2520release%2520--%2520March%25202007%E2%80%A6.pdf+campaigns+for+men+and+depression&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=au

http://au.movember.com/outcomes/content/Financial-Summary/ lists some of the mens health campaigns that organization supports.

NSW Health and Movember:

http://www.sesiahs.health.nsw.gov.au/news_and_events/2007/20071115_Movember.asp

The Australian Psychological Society lists resources on men's issues:

http://www.groups.psychology.org.au/mmig/resources/

Campaign in 2007 by the AMA on men's health:
prostate cancer, diabetes, testicular cancer, bowel cancer, overweight and obesity, skin cancer, heart disease, and depression.

http://www.amaq.com.au/index.php?action=view&view=16271&pid=

Campaign by MISTA - the Men's Health Information Services Tasmania Alliance:
http://www.farmpoint.tas.gov.au/farmpoint.nsf/news/0AF4E8D3F62EC033CA2574320080D0B1

Listing of more than a dozen campaigns and sources of help for men, as well as generic and overseas sites:
by Mensline, including: Andrology Australia; Mens Peer Health; MoodGym and so on:
http://www.menslineaus.org.au/Links.aspx?Catg=General&HeadId=1

MENDS:
http://www.mends.com.au/default.htm

Campaign by Lifeline targeted at men's issues:
http://www.readthesigns.com.au/

Fathersandsons - including a Utube short re: support group and emotional wellbeing:
http://www.fathersandsons.com.au/

Mensline for young men:
http://www.menslineaus.org.au/Youth/Default.aspx

"Mensline Australia offers professional support 24 hours a day, seven days a week for men with family and relationship issues, including men concerned about the effect that depression may be having on their relationships. The service is non-judgemental, confidential and anonymous."

Blokes Day local project and booklet - media promotion:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/22/2169896.htm

Life education film for teenaged boys:

"We know that guys - generally right throughout the lifespan - don't talk about emotional issues," he said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/13/2117568.htm

Mens Sheds:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/11/1947921.htm

Some 2008 Funding initiatives for suicide prevention strategy and specialist programs for men:
http://www.theage.com.au/national/mens-health-campaign-20080608-2nkq.html

Department of Health and Ageing - Livingisforeveryone Fact Sheet focusing on men's needs:

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:AisVDhDJ8QoJ:www.livingisforeveryone.com.au/DownloadDocument.ashx%3FDocumentID%3D52+campaigns+for+men+and+suicide&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=au

cont'd

cont'd

Suicide Prevention Australia deals with issues concerning male suicide as a priority area. The site lists several programs and links to programs including state initiatives:

"Continuing its commitment to community awareness and public health advocacy, Suicide Prevention Australia (SPA) today launched the first of a series of position statements addressing priority areas of suicide prevention.

The position statements, Suicide Prevention and Capacity Building in Australian Indigenous Communities and Men and Suicide: Future Directions, build on SPA’s existing events-based advocacy agenda and propose a clearly defined set of guiding principles and recommendations for action and change.

Primary to these is a call for the development of a national Health and Well Being Strategy for Men.... "

http://www.suicidepreventionaust.org/Media.aspx
http://www.suicidepreventionaust.org/Resources.aspx (DVD; National Forums; National Conference highlighting men's issues).

- and there are others like Ozhelp - an award winning campaign for men in the building and construction industries that started after 3 apprentices committed suicide: http://www.ozhelp.org.au/ - and various state level and indigenous community programs.

As I said, one doesn't see women whinging that the focus is on men, yet something like 20% of completed suicides are of women. In fact, many of those programs have female facilitators and advocates involved, such as Ozhelp, and in work at the community level. I call that good community caring.

R0bert

I've had enough. Not once have I denied that a percentage of men are abused. In fact here and on other threads I have provided links for men seeking further information and/or help.

I don't understand what you are getting at here anymore. I have spoken about my own experiences, I have acknowledged on many discussion threads that men get a raw deal as well. Just what do you want? To say that women are as physically violent as men?

I can't say that because it isn't true.

I can say that women do use psychological and verbal tactics either to dominate or to defend themselves. But so do men.

Why was it so wrong for Rudd to speak out against violence perpetrated against women?

Why does this fact bring on so much outrage from men? Not outrage where men decry this violence, but outrage at women who dare to say yes, I lived in terror in my own home. And yes, it is about time violence against women and children stopped. Aren't you concerned that the incidence of violence is greatest against pregnant women?

I feel utterly wrecked, I put in so much effort in my previous posts and still you want .... what? This is precisely why I loathe posting on these threads, trying to articulate in a manner that doesn't offend anyone and still being demanded to justify myself.

ENOUGH!

Fractelle,

Thanks for your insightful and sensible posts. Thanks to others who have also tried to clarify whatever concerns some posters here seem to have about working to reduce DV.

Like you Fractelle I and other female posters have never denied that there are male victims of DV. Services exist to help them as well. I know that our local refuge finds suitable accommodation and services for any men seeking help. There are helplines for men too.

I don't know what more they want either. Ignoring or minimizing the fact of violence against women won't help reduce violence against men (which isn't ignored anyway). If we are serious about stopping violence, isn't it better to start somewhere, than nowhere.

If generalizing the message to "Stop violence by all to all" worked, action to stop violence would have happened long ago and the feminist movement might never have started, or would have been substantially different anyway.

There are some good men involved like Michael Flood and his ilk. There are some great police officers and others in the judiciary and a few in government who at least voice good intentions. There are researchers - male and female. There are plenty of female researchers looking at issues for males as well btw.

Every time a bloke complains about women objecting to violence from men, they give implicit permission for other men to continue being violent towards women. Using that same logic explains why I, Fractelle and others don't have a problem with acknowledging violence by females and condemning it.

As someone posted way back, men make up the greatest number of victims of violence perpetrated by OTHER men. How is denying women's experiences going to reduce that? Why are men here not working on campaigns to tackle that male on male violence (with at least as much energy as you expend trying to silence women) ?

R0bert, I have yet to relocate that link on Violence between lesbian women. Sorry for the delay.

Fractelle, what eloquent posts.

Pynchme I admire your patience and dedication to find all those links for the men who think that women do not care about the men in their lives. I'm going so far as to say, that generally it is women who care more about men than men do about other men.

There are women who are violent, there are women behaving less then acceptable. How does that excuse upping the ante and using greater violence, behaving even worse? Two wrongs do not make a right.

You want women to accept responsibility? Men need to accept responsibility too. She didn't deserve it, she didn't make you do it. You could remove yourself and seek help.

When I see men coming into ED and into ICU with injuries caused by the women in their lives, I'll be right there to support any call for action against this.

As it is, wouldn't it be great if men could call for action against violence of men against other men, instead of seeing this as some macho male thing. 'He really clobbered him didn't he? Served the bastard right.' Now how many times have I heard that in hospital? Even more often than 'She made me do it, she should have just shut up.'

Fantastic posts, Anansi, Fractelle, Pynchme.

Fractelle asks RObert what it is that he wants. A fair question because I’m getting confused as well.
From my understanding, RObert doesn’t want to single out DV against women; campaigns should include ALL violence.

While I have no problem, as I said, to proportionally include male victims in domestic violence campaigns and funding, DV should remain a separate issue because an all-violence campaign (do we include wars as well?) would otherwise have to cover a too broad area and will be less effective.

Objecting to a specific DV campaign is a bit like objecting to a specific anti-tobacco campaign. Because other drugs are also a health risk, is it wrong to focus only on smokers? If we include all other drugs much of the message that “smoking kills” will go up in smoke.

Focussing on risks of smoking does not mean that other drugs don’t need attention, it just means that one destructive drug is prioritised and it's anticipated that this will help many smokers quit the habit.
It worked. The campaigns and strict regulations reduced tobacco use in Australia.
That only smokers or potential smokers benefit from this campaign is true- but as a non-smoker I don’t object just because non-smokers do not benefit.

In fact, I accept that the nation’s general health will improve overall, which will be of benefit to all of us. Less people taking up hospital beds, more productivity etc.

DV happens to be a serious health issue, too- worldwide.
It needs attention; like tobacco use, it needs to reduce because it affects whole families including the mental health of future generations.

We will all benefit when DV can be reduced, social and economical costs reduce as well: less health care costs, more productivity, happier families, and healthier communities.

Well thank the gods that others have expressed my own confusion: what exactly is it that is wanted from us? Shouldn't be necessary but will add: I am another one who has never denied nor sought to deny that women initiate violence. Have yet to see a female poster who has denied. Not once. Ever.

Like Fractelle, I don't see why one should have to preface remarks in the way she indicated. Even if people can't remember - onesposting history is right there. Easily accessible. Sheesh. In a previous post I stated clearly "But do I think all men are bad fathers? No I do not.I think HE was a bad father" (O.K., not exactly the right words, but after poring over literally hundreds of posts from Antiseptics, U.S's. etc posting history I'm done going back right now). Despite this a couple of posts later Antiseptic was naming me specifically as a "man-hater" Wot the...?

In response to the article I wrote on male suicide U.S.'s response was how god must have a sense of humour giving me two sons. 'Way to go!

I have posted again and again that I am a suicide interventionist, that the field I work in is male suicide, that I ran my house as a refuge for street boys until I and my own kids got evicted and ended up homeless because of it: that I go round to schools and organisations and clubs giving lectures, leading discussion, facilitating, raising consciousness about boys and young men, that I made a doco on homeless boys. I write articles and papers. I intervene and facillitate in psychiatric wards...and I run a 24 hr. hot line for my students here. What the fu#k else must I do to prove that I am not a "whining, winging, man-hater."

I feel strongly about issues and I go out and try to do something about them. I wonder more and more whether Antiseptic, U. Suss, HRS et all - ever do?

Anansi & Fractelle,

You know, in a way, I think we ARE talking about apples and oranges here. I followed a link someone cited here which led to a newspaper article where lots of blokes were all recounting their experiences at female-initiated violence.

And yes, I agree that people shouldn't shout and yell and throw things and fly at each other in a rage. Its hideous. And its happening more and more with our increasingly stressfull modern life-styles. Its a problem that takes a huge toll.

But in those stories those men cited, they still had the means to stop it. Social conditioning (never hit a woman etc.) held them back. But none of them spoke of being in the kind of situation where you are so much in danger that, bugger, social conditioning, you are fighting for your life. If I'd thought I could stop what was happening with a knock-out punch of course I would have done it.

Men's stories don't include sexual abuse which plays such a big part of violence. I've posted previously having both my vagina and my anus re-modelled and have met many other women (including my own mother in her first marriage) who have been through the same. But we don't like to upset other peoples sensibilities so that is a whole area that rarely comes to light.

The men who posted all had the choice (albeit a difficult one) to walk away. They don't understand that we don't ("Why does she stay? She must like it") I've had two of my own friends killed by their husbands. And have posted here before what it took to escape with my boys.

It is clear that all those - and yes, there are many- guys who talk about their experiences and how they were hamstrung by the "Never hit a woman (back)" ethic have no understanding of what we mean when we talk about Domestic Violence. We're talking two different ball-games.

Romany:"I feel strongly about issues and I go out and try to do something about them. I wonder more and more whether Antiseptic, U. Suss, HRS et all - ever do?"

Wonder no more. At different times I have assisted with several "social welfare" programs. I am also a regular contributor of correspondence to politicians and others relating to the issues that matter to me. This forum and some others are a good way for me to "feel out" an issue, especially the likely knee-jerk responses. It helps to keep my serious writing focussed and tailored to the responses I would like to elicit. On occasion I've changed my view of what that response might be as a result of the dicussion.

Romany:"Social conditioning (never hit a woman etc.) "

That social conditioning has existed since before I was born and i agree wholeheartedly with it. Certainly I've never raised my fist to any woman.

However, the social conditioning has clearly morphed into "women can do what they like to men, but men can't hit back", which is an entirely different kettle of fish.

Unlike your smoking analogy, the campaigns about this subject are tainted by what they DON"T say. They don't say "women must take some responsibility for escalating issues to violence" or "taunting men safe in the knowledge he'll be locked up if he reacts" and similar opbvious corollaries. The message excludes entirely a class of violence victims that happen to be male and says nothing whatever about the fact that the class of offenders is actually very small. Often a serial offender will move from one violent relationship to another, while most men never offend.

This discussion, like many other similar ones, has been characterised by a wilful disregard for the actual position offered by the men here in favour of an emotive outpouring designed to do no more than cloud the issue, along with a collective hen-pecking from the women.

What do I want.

A time when a male with an abusive spouse can seek help from police or others with a reasonable degree of confidence that his situation won't be dismissed or mocked because of his gender.

A time when a male seeking the use of services will know that they are available to him and can be confident of not getting someone at the other end so immersed in the paradime that it's never her fault that he might actually get some help.

A time when social worrkers and counsellors won't tell him, she is smaller and unlikiely to cause harm.

A time when we talk about DV we know what we are talking about. The last few posts have been valuable but they don't explain why the government funded add I saw yesterday on a bus about monitoring emails was gender specific. Most of the campaigns spend a lot of effort on the lower level stuff which women are just as capable of.

A time when a male who does walk can have some confidence that he won't loose almost everything due to maternal bias and assumptions about protecting women and children. - This one may have changed a bit recently, I'm trying to make sense of that.

A time when it's never his fault.

A time when at least some of the anti-spousal violence message tells women not to hit.

I don't think any of us here are excusing those who hit back with far greater force, rather saying that it does happen when people are left with no other place to turn. Human beings make mistakes especially in extreme situations.

TBC

R0bert

Part 2

Campaigns don't necessarily have to be gender neutral as long as the other message is getting out there as well, in this case the other message is quite clearly and deliberatly not going out apparently because that somehow hides the violence against women. I've still not worked that one out.

From the comments about the nature of DV the apples and oranges in spousal violence can be split between the stuff that's about controlling a partner and the stuff thats a short term loss of control. The DV that those supporting a gendered anti-DV message are concerned with seems to be the extreme controlling behaviours backed by greater physical strength type. Thats not the message I get from the government campaigns which seem to be about all levels of spousal violence by men against women regardless of the context.

If DV is just the extreme controlling behavious enforced by greater physical strength then lets tell all those women who are subjected to lower level violence or occasional hits or thrown objects because a partner can't control themselves that what they are experiencing is not DV. Lets tell them that to offer them support detracts from the real victims of DV so they are on their own - thats what you are doing to men.

R0bert

Yeah, Robert, now I think we are approaching a mutual understanding here. I agree with you entirely on this level. And perhaps you can gain a little insight into where the people who fear that the issue of the "other end" violence runs the risk of being subsumed by a generalised message?

Maybe we need to make it clear that there are two types of spousal violence going on out there? Yes, we need a campaign that addresses the escalating levels of conflict within the home. Yes, we need to make it clear that an hysterical out-of-control woman is quite likely to be the instigator in such conflict. And that conflict in the home - of any kind - is impacting on our families and, thus, broader society... and so the problem escalates.

And from the mental health pov we also need to hammer this because so many of these people should, under a better health-care system, be treated and monitored. As you know by now, my field includes history and it definately seems that this phenomenon of the abusive female is both relatively(within the last 50 years) new and increasingly occurring.

I am sorry that your own troubles were not taken seriously. In no organisation I have been connected with has violence towards men not been taken seriously, nor have I, personally, ever treated a male victim differently to a female victim. But its true that some members of the police force and the male victims own workmates, and sometimes even extended family, often do not act appropriately.

But that still leaves us with the problem of how then to fight against and make people aware of, the other, more sinister and often - for a variety of reasons - more hidden violence? The kind that HAS been going on for centuries pretty much unchecked. The kind where it is unavoidable that gender plays an important role because, by its very nature, gender is at the heart of it.

R0bert - I have never seen any male who claimed to have been assaulted denied care by local organizations; nor have I done less for any man in that situation than I have for any female.

I think the disbelief you experienced might be more attributable to the same sexist attitudes and machismo that has kept violence against women hidden and denied for so long. (Sort of summarize: Women are by type hysterical and not to be believed; men don't experience pain or hurt and anyway real men control their women...)

At the same time, reflect on how women have managed to have their situation and vulnerabilities taken seriously (by many but far from all) sectors of society. They started by mutual support groups and by telling their stories. Then research. Then they advocated for each other and sought change within justice and policing institutions.

I notice that other subgroups of DV or partner violence, like lesbians, are doing the same thing - their own research; telling their own stories so that we can see what is same; what is different from DV as we currently understand it.

I suggest that victimized men do the same. Instead of trying to prove it's as much as or that the female experience is less - why not just tell your own stories. Some sameness with female victim DV will be apparent; the differences also will become clear.

As with people who experience violence in lesbian relationships, you are sure to have the sympathy and support of feminists like myself.

cont'd

Cont'd:

I don't know anything to speak of about violence between people in homosexual relationships, but sympathize with any victim of DV.

Anyway, about the link to which I referred. Unfortunately it's a library access thing by the looks of it. However here is the reference:

Paroissien, Karen and Stewart, Penny. Surviving Lesbian Abuse: Empowerment Groups for Education and Support [online]. Women Against Violence: An Australian Feminist Journal; Issue 9; Dec 2000; 33-40. Availability: <http://search.informit.com.au.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/documentSummary;dn=590869558781945;res=IELHSS> ISSN: 1327-5550. [cited 04 Oct 08].

The authors ran support groups for lesbian who had experienced DV by their partners. There were about 60 participants from 1991 to 1997.

It's interesting because it talks about the sameness of and differences to heterosexual DV and about how ideas about lesbian violence are under discussion in feminist circles. It also describes how support groups function and how they help their members with safety issues.

In part it says:

"It is not fighting between two equals or mutual abuse as some in the lesbian communities and literature would suggest (Hart, 1986; Burstow, 1992). Labelling it this way further masks the issue and excuses us from doing anything about it. It is not an isolated
incident of violence. It is an ongoing and systematic controlling of one partner by the other, thereby creating a real power imbalance in the relationship. While the woman who is being abused may try to
defend herself and stop the violence by doing what she thinks her lover wants, the violence continues. She very often thinks her partner will change, that she can assist her partner to change, and that the violence will not happen again. However nothing that she does stops the violence, eventually hope fades and only fear remains."

It's interesting reading anyway and especially as understanding develops about the difficulties encountered by people who experience violence in homosexual relationships.

Male and female homosexuals, as DV sub groups, are struggling for justice too. In the process they haven't found it necessary or desirable to minimize violence against women who live in heterosexual relationships.

Celivia, Romany, Anansi - great posts. Anansi I couldn't agree more with your post (p. 19). You put it so well.

Antispetic all that I can recommend for someone so set in their negative views about women and clear lack of knowledge about DV, is that you make a concerted effort to find out about it. Maybe somewhere, sometime, something will spark some compassion in you that can quell that hatred you nurture. Your posts are just sad.

Your remarks about emotive outpourings and hen-pecking, ignoring the ganging together and abusive posts by you and your cohorts, suggest that you're quite an old bloke. There is NO reason why emotional aspects of DV or any violence shouldn't be expressed. To dictate that it be less is to deny the humanity in the whole shebang. I'm trying to extend due respect to you in case you're an old geezer, that is - presumably you just don't know any better.

Here's an overview of policy issues, if you're interested at all in getting up to speed with the past 20 years of research and social activity:

Murray, Suellen. An Impossibly Ambitious Plan? Australian Policy and the Elimination of Domestic Violence [online]. Just Policy: A Journal of Australian Social Policy; Issue 38; Dec 2005; 27-33

Pynchme, Anansi, Celivia and Romany

Thank you for clearly stating the many complexities of domestic violence. And all the extensive thought and research - very time consuming and I hope that any OLO reader can follow the links and find help if they, too, need it.

Domestic violence, for me, was about power. My husband wanted to control everything about me, the way I looked, what I did, my social life and wanted complete subservience at home. We actually lived together for 12 months before marrying. He changed once that wedding ring was on my finger.

R0bert

What you want is what any victim of DV wants - help and also validation. And validation is what I believe you really seek. I was too ashamed to seek help for myself. I just eventually got organised and left. Only 20-30 years ago the situation for women was much the same as you are describing for men. Thanks to feminism the entire issue of DV has been brought into public awareness. There are places for men to go and counseling available, not as many services as for women this is true. However, most of it is due to the anachronistic stereotypes that still prevail today. Like "be a man" - what tha freak does that mean anyway? Being a real man or woman is about self-control, not controlling another. Dominating another person is not a sign of a mature fully-integrated personality.

For people like Antiseptic it means that any woman who talks about her experience or protests about DV is "henpecking" and "emotional". These attitudes are demonstrably still very much in evidence throughout our society. This is why women still have to be very vigilant.

Keep up the protest, R0bert, together we may just put all bullies into the dustbin of history.

Pynchme:"negative views about women"

I don't have negative views of women, but I do have little respect for the arguments attempting to make the morally bankrupt case that violence against women is qualitatively different to violence against men. Your post is simply another example of the attempted demonisation of someone who disagrees with your poorly-made case.

Pynchme:"There is NO reason why emotional aspects of DV or any violence shouldn't be expressed"

If your goal is to inflame rather than inform, than emotional arguments are fantastic. Ask any dictator.

I have been accused of "bitterness", "hating women", being tainted by my experiences and all sorts of other things because I freely acknowledge that my experiences have shaped my views on certain things, which I then try to fit into a logical framework. The ones who so accuse me are inevitably the same ones who then justify their own views using their own experiences. Frankly, I see nothing but hypocrisy in that behaviour.

I have said that I visit and contribute to these forums to improve my own understanding of views opposing my own. It's a shame that so many of those holding such views are unable to do the same, with yourself as a prime example. On the evidence to date, you are simply incapable of accepting that a view opposing your own can have validity. That leads you to make silly errors of logic in your utterances.

Pynchme:"you're an old geezer, that is - presumably you just don't know any better"

LOL. My age is irrelevant, but I'll go so far as to say that I'm not as wet behind the ears as you appear to be.

I might also add that much of your output would be classed as "violence" if a man said it to a woman in a domestic situation. Congratulations.

Antispectic: "On the evidence to date, you are simply incapable of accepting that a view opposing your own can have validity..."

When someone presents credible evidence by credible researchers I have great interest in working out how all the pieces so far known fit together; and modifying my grand theories accordingly, if needed.

If you are talking about the misogynistic material collected together on hate mongering anti fenminist/ woman hating sites; such material is opinion; some based on partial evidence and misrepresented stats.

Btw: I don't need evidence from anywhere to feel and express compassion towards anyone victimized by any abuser and, as Fractelle mentions, bully.

Antiseptic: "I might also add that much of your output would be classed as "violence" if a man said it to a woman in a domestic situation. Congratulations>"

Do you have an example?

Pynchme, you attempt to belittle those who disagree with you in all sorts of ways. In your last post to me you claimed I had "negative views about women", that I lack compassion, that I "nurture" "hatred", that I must be senile or at least "an old geezer" and that I am just "sad". This was in an effort to somehow discredit me personally for daring to suggest that there is no qualitative difference between violence directed at males or at females.

That, according to the DV campaigns we see all the time, is abuse. You are a classic practitioner of the double standard. Some might just call you hypocritical.

Antiseptic CONSTANTLY belittles others who have an opinion that is not shared by him on topics that have anything to do with feminism, mens' rights, domestic violence orders, child support, womens' rights and similar topics.

If someone agrees "partially" with him, he'll bend a little regarding his abusive nature. If someone essentially disagrees with "his" opinion, he'll then offer put downs and personal abuse, and when someone replies to him in the same manner he cries "foul", and paints himself (and sometimes men in general) as the victim.

He uses the typical violent and abusive ploy of blaming others for "his" behaviour.

Imagine anybody suggesting that Antiseptic holds negative views about women!

Where would they get such an idea?

CJ, Bill Henson, says he checked out a Melbourne primary school, accompanied by the principal, to find new young meat for his work.

The way I read it, Rainier, is that he said he went to the school "in search of subjects for his artwork". If he wanted to photograph meat, I imagine he'd go to a butcher's shop.

http://news.theage.com.au/national/henson-scouted-school-for-child-models-20081004-4tnh.html

But what does that have to do with this topic?

Pynchme:"when someone replies to him in the same manner he cries "foul""

You misunderstand; I am simply pointing out that under the definition of violence offered by the various anti-DV campaigns, you act violently. I've already stated that I don't consider that sort of thing to be violence. It's nice to see you agree with me. Does this mean you'll revisit your own thinking on the matter?

CJ:"Where would they get such an idea?"

Not from my posts. If you can show me where I say anything negative about women in general, rather than about specific sub-groups who merely happen to be women, I'll gladly accept your statement. Take your time...

Oh, this is hilarious!

The forum's misogynist, antiseptic, is "really" not anti women, but only "anti specific sub groups who happen to be women". This is GREAT entertainment.

There ya go women, as long as you don't believe in feminism, don't believe in gender equality, don't go to the CSA for adequate child support, don't believe in DVOs against violent men, are not manipulative in any way whatsoever, never yell and always pander to your man's needs while placing yourself and the children second, then antiseptic is not the LEAST BIT misogynistic towards you.

Yes, antiseptic the forum's resident misogynist, is GREAT entertainment.

JW - have to confess to a bit of a splutter into my coffee and a quiet giggle about that as well.

Fractelle, thanks. I hope this is not just about validation, I hope I've learn a lot since that time. I do want to try and cut the focus on gender and the misrepresentation out of discussion on the lack of control type spousal violence discussion.

Pynchme, "In the process they haven't found it necessary or desirable to minimize violence against women who live in heterosexual relationships" - I'm seriously over that slur. Some men do try and minimise violence against women, it's not something I'm doing yet you post it over and over again to try and justify minimising violence against men. It's no better than posting the worst excesses of the womens movement to cut down women with genuine grievances.

Highlighting that women are as capable of most of the spousal violence and controlling behaviours portrayed in the media is not minimising violence against women. It's trying to get men some support when they do seek help. From memory I had three different private marriage counselling services dismiss my ex's use of violence on the basis that she was smaller than me and unlikely to do real harm as well as someone from a major relationships organisation getting a lot of government business. I didn't call the police over physical violence but did call them once when my ex was in a property I was renting and being very verbally abusive and refusing to leave. They called back about an hour later to ask if I still wanted someone to come around. I was stuck feeling that if I left my property would be damaged, if I tried to remove her I'd be the one guilty of assault and the police really were very disinterested.

R0bert

Romany:"have to confess to a bit of a splutter into my coffee and a quiet giggle about that as well."

In that case, you'll have no trouble sharing the joke. Show me where I have been generally dismissive of women or have made general remarks denigrating women on the basis of their gender. Take your time...

Me (two days ago):"This discussion, like many other similar ones, has been characterised by a wilful disregard for the actual position offered by the men here in favour of an emotive outpouring designed to do no more than cloud the issue, along with a collective hen-pecking from the women."

I note that the collective hen-pecking continues, while little of substance is emanating from those who would have the debate confined to a topic of their choosing (that includes you, Romany). Meanwhile, anyone who disagrees with the contention that violence against women is qualitatively different to violence against men is labelled "misogynist". That's not merely weak, it's dishonest and intellectually lazy.

Romany, JW and CJ - lmao. Thanks for adding your observations.

Antiseptic, I went to your list of posts and looked at a couple with the intent of bringing back examples but they are just too numerous; the posts would be too long and it seemed on the whole a pointless exercise. The posts constantly infer that women are the enemy - not to be trusted; unstable; hysterical (one of your favourites).

I'm sorry, but your posts ARE sad.

R0bert, I'm sorry that you perceive that as a slur. However, calling all violence the same places the experience of women back into the general conglomeration of offences. It then detracts from the peculiarities of their situation. It hides their powerlessness and terror and the special care that needs to be taken to extract them safely (if possible) from their situation. Nor does it do anything to help male victims of violence.

I have not tried to define your experience; I wouldn't presume to do that. I accept what you say of it without reservation. Your experiences are no less valid (from my point of view) than that of women and people in the other sub-groups.

What I point out is that other sub-groups describe their experiences and in doing that differences, similarities and special needs that may warrant specific remedies become apparent. The sites that you see as having credibility express a need to find "symmetry" (as M. Flood says) - I don't see any purpose or advantage in that for male victims; and therefore it seems to me to be an exercise in minimizing womens experience.

I am urging you (men generaly) to simply compile your own stories.

Antiseptic,

If DV experienced by women and by men is qualitatively the same, as you insist, you should be able to refer to a few cases where women have pursued men and killed or tried to kill both the father and children; or few cases where women have killed themselves and the children (like gassed in a car or shot). Maybe you have a couple where the father has had acid thrown or a shot gun blast to the face or where the man has been physically prevented from leaving the house and in terror of serious harm if he defied his missus.

I'm sorry to be so blunt, but unless you can come up with more than one or two cases of those sorts of experiences for male victims, then there are qualitative differences.

Male victims no doubt have some bad experiences; the strategies used to terrorize them may usually be quite different. I'm interested to know what those experiences and strategies. They deserve to be expressed and recognized in their own right.

Antiseptic claims: "I note that the collective hen-pecking continues, while little of substance is emanating from those who would have the debate confined to a topic of their choosing (that includes you, Romany). Meanwhile, anyone who disagrees with the contention that violence against women is qualitatively different to violence against men is labelled "misogynist". That's not merely weak, it's dishonest and intellectually lazy."

No, Antiseptic. If you bothered to seriously consider the many posts made by female (and male) posters you would understand that there is a difference between violence in the home and that in, say, a pub brawl. Nor has anyone labelled you as misogynistic. However YOU HAVE labelled every single experience, fact and point of view offered by all the female contributors as:

"dishonest and intellectually lazy".

When challenged on this 'absolute statement' by CJ, you claim that you are referring to a particular "subset" of women.

Not once have the views of men been willfully disregarded. We are, however, FREE to disagree with you, as I am now. This is neither "lazy" nor "clouding the issue". But it is disagreeing, and I believe that is where you have difficulties in accepting that the female experience is as valid as the male experience of violence, that violence within the home is different to that encountered outside the home.

Well, this "subset' of women have either experienced domestic violence first hand and/or are objecting to it. A very large "subset" indeed. All you are doing is "disregarding" everything any woman has to say, as Pynchme said this is just "sad" and I think she is being very polite.

R0bert, have you accessed the following helpline?

Domestic and family violence service Queensland
Dvconnect mensline –
1800 600 636
Phone line for men. 9am - midnight, 7 day

Pynchme:"The posts constantly infer that women are the enemy - not to be trusted; unstable; hysterical (one of your favourites)."

No, your inference is your own and I mean to imply none of the things you claim to infer. It's sad that you cannot engage on the content of my posts, but must rely on your own inference to try to discredit me. It's possibly revealing of your own view of your gender that you inferred that particular set of descriptors.

Surely, if the examples are so numerous, you could have found one example of what I actually said that supports your own rather sad inferences?

You could ask Col Rouge about being called "hysterical", if you like. I do believe I've applied the term to his posts in the main. Is he a woman too?

Pynchme:"If DV experienced by women and by men is qualitatively the same, as you insist"

The topic is the disparate treatment of the issue of violence on the basis of gender. You and some others have tried to limit that to a discussion of DV. I have chosen not to allow you to control me by limiting in that way and have stuck to the original subject.

Pynchme:"They deserve to be expressed and recognized in their own right."

Why? Why genderise at all? Why not a simple "violence is bad"?

Fractelle:"However YOU HAVE labelled every single experience, fact and point of view offered by all the female contributors as:

"dishonest and intellectually lazy". "

What a lot of rot. Go back and read what I wrote and also have a look at the number of posts calling me "misogynist" for trying to keep the diswcussion on track.

As for experiences, all I've said is that there is a double standard applied, so that men's experience is belittled as "misogynist", while that of women is taken as incontrovertible proof of whatever is under discussion at the time. Frankly, all this thread is doing is showing how correct I am on both points.

Fractelle, thanks. This is far better than anything I could find at the time but I don't think it's in the right place yet.

I just had a look at their website and it highlights a problems I mentioned earlier in that those services which are around are strongly orientated around male violence. This one acknowledges that they will help men who have been the victims of DV but the messages seem to go the other way. If I was having problems with a violent partner I'd be very nervous about confiding in a service so clearly focussed around male violence against females.

http://www.dvconnect.org/mensline/default.asp

"Importantly Mensline offers specialist assistance for men who are seeking strategies to address their own use of violence and other destructive patterns in their personal lives and relationships, as well as those who may be (or have been) victims of violence themselves. "

"This may manifest in further expressions of violence towards their families, the wider community or themselves."

"assist men to gain the support needed to make positive choices towards getting their lives back in order and to stop using violence in their realtionships."

"Its aim is the prevention of male family violence including that in same sex or transgender couples."

"To provide counselling support, information, referral and education services to men who have inflicted or at risk of inflicting violence on family members and to family members exposed to male family violence or the risk of male family violence."

"Family Violence is largely about the misuse of power and control in the context of male dominance. All forms of violence are unacceptable and must be challenged at all times. Men are responsible for their use of violence. "

Violent men do need help but a service which so clearly has it's emphasis on male violence is a very risky proposition for a male victim already struggling with the idea that it's always his fault.

I'll have a think about what they are doing and see if I can think of ways to unwind the messages and still meet both needs.

R0bert

I agree there's a qualitative difference between domestic violence and random violence.

Domestic violence, no matter which gender initiates it, means being harmed by someone with whom you live in a uniquely vulnerable and supposedly trusting environment.

How people as individuals experience this violence and recover from it is different from how someone would experience and recover from a random act of violence. Domestic violence flows from very particular motives — control, jealousy, insecurity.

How we as a society attack these two situations will also be different. CCTV, an increased police presence and restrictions on licensing laws can often decrease violent areas in cities. Clearly, this wouldn't work in the home.

To admit that these two types of violence have different characteristics is not to say one is more worthy of attention than another — it simply acknowledges the differences which in turn helps inform those trying to prevent it how best to do that. In fact, the more nuanced we can be about profiling people who are violent and their victims, the further we can go in helping them.

R0bert,

'Violent men do need help but a service which so clearly has it's emphasis on male violence is a very risky proposition for a male victim already struggling with the idea that it's always his fault. '

I hear you loud and clear, and such will always be the case.

I give up realy. There is no hope on OLO of ever debating a topic sensibly. When I see quotes like this 'but after poring over literally hundreds of posts from Antiseptics, U.S's. etc posting history', I see that people don't want to argue the issue at hand, they want to score points.

Innacurate and deliberatly misrepresented arguments from my past postings have made anything I have to say null and void. So I wont post anymore. I am pre-judged as one of the 'Usual Suspects'.

The constant ambiguous and cowardly use of 'some male posters...(insert any insult such as have an alterior motive to cover up violence against women) from people on here just depresses me. It is impossible to argue against someones pre-judged opinion of your character, strenuously researched by someone hell bent on reinforcing their own preconceptions of you, then twisted around and mixed up with every other Tom, Dick and Harry to create a nameless 'other', which you are included in, and which somehow makes any thing you say not worth replying to, but still worthy of a snipe

When you get people saying things such as...
'If I'd thought I could stop what was happening with a knock-out punch of course I would have done it. '
It just shows some women will never comprehend that the MAJORITY of men would not and could not do this. These very same men then have to listen to adverts that imply there is an 'insidious epidemic' of violent men, and we are watching you all. You men are violent by nature, and if you protest, like on this forum, you must have something to hide.

Go through the hell of seeing your partner attack you with every part of their soul, and then hear that if you so much as raise your voice back, now THAT's domestic violence, you are just as bad as the lowest scum of society.

Try to walk away, when your partner is threatening suicide, or stay, and get the stitches in your forearms and risk having your face slashed. But know, that if you happened to push her away from you or grab her arms to stop her hitting you, you are 'one of those' men, that you have tried so hard not to be. The protective instinct that keeps you trying to fix her, that makes you fall for the tears of regret in the morning and think things will get better chance after chance, to protect the reputation of someone you love all turned against you.

I am now sure I am an abuser. I am now sure I am covering up domestic violence by men by fighting against this betrayal of me that doesn't fit my reality.

Usual Suspect I hope that you don't quit. It is frustrating at times, I'm really finding that nasty claim that we are trying to silence female victims irritating but I think that there is benefit in this. Some do listen, some do care and some are willing to look further than the mantra's. Consider Fractelle's hurt on this issue yet she is willing to talk and try and reach understanding.

I've spent a bit more time on the Dvconnect website and it really leaves me with the impression that a male victim of female family violence is unlikely to get a believing ear (if the counsellors views coincide with the views on the website.

They seem to be totally immersed in the male violence, female victimhood philosophy. I suspect that the mention of male victims is to do with their support for gays and trans gender people.

"It requires professional workers who not only understand domestic and family violence but who are able to make appropriate crisis assessments often at a critical time in a woman and her children’s lives."

Maybe the counsellors do better than the website, that's hard to tell from outside.

I didn't much like their Understanding Family Violence section but with a minor rewording it's great

- Family Violence is largely about the misuse of power and control in the context of dominance within a family. All forms of violence are unacceptable and must be challenged at all times.
- Adults are responsible for their use of violence.
- Adults can change and challenge other adults to work for change.

R0bert

Usual Suspect, your story sounds horrendous. Robert also has had some terrible experiences.

Both of you have had to deal with terrible emotional and psychological abuse. I cannot think of a single poster who has ever denied or inferred that men cannot be victims of this kind of abuse, or indeed physical abuse.

I know one man very well who has had a number of years of horrible emotional and psychological abuse. This was 18 years ago. He remained for as long as he could because there were children involved. When he finally tried to leave she prevented him by barricading the doorways and threatening him. He hit her. The police came, he was taken away and an order was placed against him.

At court though, because he had sought counselling previously, admitted that he did hit her, but he was trying to leave, his lawyer suggested self-defence (even though he is 185cm and she 158cm)the judgement took this in account and there was no further action him. In fact he eventually ended up having sole custody of his son.

So, the claims that the whole system is geared towards-woman blameless victim-man violent perpetrator, might make for emotive posting, but is not what actually happens in the real world.

As Pynchme suggests, and others have also suggested, it is of paramount importance for men to tell their own stories so the pecularities of male victims in DV are dealt with.

Though, women also experience emotional and psychological abuse the experiences are not experienced the same way by men. That is simply because of the nature of many male-female relationships and often also size and/or ability or opportunity to carry out threats.

Some campaigns are necessarily genderised, simply because serious consequences are suffered mainly by a particular gender. Like with the 'Safe home' campaign in regard to Workplace Health and Safety. It is aimed at men, because it is men who are predominantly victims of death. This does not mean that no woman has ever died, but men are more likely to be in situations that are physically dangerous.

Robert
Ten years ago, when I started taking the issue of young male suicide out into the community no-one wanted to listen. In fact in some schools I was specifically banned from talking about it. So I changed the topic to "Adolescent Mental Health" and then went on to talk about YMS anyway. Figured, once I had the mike in my hand they couldn't stop me. It worked. The gratifying thing is that suicide rates in this category have dropped; the subject is now acknowledged; and many worthwhile campaigns in place.

Like Anansi, I have never been associated with any organisation which does not recognise female violence and have worked with victims and seen first hand female violence towards their partner (and sometimes to parents etc. as well)- even having to go in and try to defuse the situation as part of an initiative in my part of the country. I wholeheartedly agree with the suggestion that you organise, and get your stories told. Rather than preaching to the converted, as it were, here, - target the general populace. I would start with those whom you feel belittled your experiences and submit a document detailing your treatment not just to them, but to your Member of Parliament etc.

I also found that Service Clubs such as Lions, Rotary etc.are very receptive as they are always looking for areas in which they can help. For an entire year once I WAS the face of mental illness for one of the clubs...which my kids found a doubtful honour!

You once said you would never stop highlighting this situation - just as I will never stop highlighting women's position. But if there is a two pronged attack - and a lot more co-operation - perhaps, working from both angles, we can all work together lessening domestic violence in all its manifestations.

Romany's last paragraph deserves repeating:

"You once said you would never stop highlighting this situation - just as I will never stop highlighting women's position. But if there is a two pronged attack - and a lot more co-operation - perhaps, working from both angles, we can all work together lessening domestic violence in all its manifestations."

R0bert there is not a single female poster here who has dismissed your experience or derided your claims. You have a great deal of support here, Domestic Violence is an abhorrent abuse of trust. The one place where we should feel secure, safe and the one person with whom we are most vulnerable, exploits that situation. While I have only rarely (once) encountered the threat of female violence, I have encountered the most appalling bullying by women in the work-place. I have no doubt that similar occurs in the home.

However, when this issue arises on OLO and elsewhere, I often feel completely abused by a cadre of posters who treat all female opinion on this topic as trivial, emotive and lacking in substance. After having revealed painful experiences and receiving the type of commentary by people like HRS and Antiseptic, I feel bullied, abused.

Like, Romany, I will continue to speak out against abuse be it in the domestic or public sphere. I have found a comprehensive analysis conducted from domestic crime reports in the ACT throughout 2003 to 2004.

As follows:

http://www.afp.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/20631/AnalysisOfFamilyViolenceIncidentsFinalJuly03June04_.pdf

Analysis of Family Violence Incidents
July 2003 June 2004
Prepared for Australian Capital Territory Policing, Australian Federal Police
By Dr Natalie Taylor
Australian Institute of Criminology
2 June 2006

Table A35. Criminal action taken for adult male and female offenders 2003-04

MALE
Arrest 384
Summons 29
VATAC 1
Caution 18
FIWT 4
Fresh Charge 26
Other 5

Total 467

FEMALE
Arrest 52
Summons 2
VATAC 0
Caution 1
FIWT 1
Fresh Charge 1
Other 1

Total 58



During the 2003-04 financial year there were 2793 separate incidents of family violence recorded on the FVIP data base (compared with 3188 incidents in 2002-03 and 3618 incidents in 2001-02).
Tuggeranong registered the highest proportion of incidents, followed by Woden.

Eighty six per cent of incidents occurred at private homes.

The most frequent confirmed incident type was "disturbance" accounting for 46 per cent of incidents. About two thirds of incidents were described as "verbal" and "verbal and physical".

Family violence relationships were most prevalent between ex-spouses and spouses, accounting for 52 per cent of incident relationships.
Involvement of children 1625 children (aged 17 or less) were recorded as being present in 44% of all family violence incidents. The majority of children present were aged between 11 and 17 while eleven per cent of children were aged under 2 years of age. Of all children present in family violence incidents, the vast majority were biological children of the offender and/or the victim.

231 children were recorded as victims in family violence incidents, while 181 children were recorded as offenders.

Of child victims, 60 per cent were female and 40 per cent were male.

Of child offenders, 61 per cent were male and 39 per cent were female.

Approximately two thirds of incidents involving child victims were verbal and physical.

Sexual offences accounted for 13 per cent of all charges laid where the victim was a child, compared with one per cent of all charges laid where the victim was an adult.

Cont’d

Cont’d

2.13.2 Children as victims

Of the 231 children who were victims in 2003-04, information about their relationship to the offender was available for 229 children (see Figure 23). Child victims were most frequently biological children of the offender (58%), with 11 per cent of child victims being step
children of the offender.

2.5 Characteristics associated with people involved in family violence incidents.
The numbers and proportions of offenders, victims and participants who were male or female, affected by alcohol, affected by drugs, used weapons, sustained an injury or had a psychological problem in 2003-04.

It can be seen that:

79 per cent of offenders were male while 21 per cent of offenders were female.

23 per cent of offenders were affected by alcohol

Seven per cent of offenders used a weapon during the incident.

Three per cent of offenders sustained an injury during the incident while 18 per cent of victims sustained an injury

Eight per cent of offenders were, in the opinion of AFP, suffering from a psychological episode at the time of the incident.

48 victims reported to police that they were pregnant."
(extracted from full report)

I believe it is fair to posit that the above analysis may be extrapolated to Australia wide. Of course, these statistics only reveal the cases where police were called to attend – many more go unreported. However it does give an indication that about 30% of offenders were female. Even 1% of either sex is unacceptable

Fractelle:"After having revealed painful experiences and receiving the type of commentary by people like HRS and Antiseptic, I feel bullied, abused."

Give me a single example where I have generally trivialised the experience of women. Just one. If you feel that way it is entirely your own feeing, so don't try to project your emotional pain and blame me for what you alone are responsible for. I jhave constantly reiterated that I simply want men and wome treated equally, rather than allowing one gender to be lauded while the other is demonised. Once, you agreed with that position.

Like Usual Suspect, I'm fed up with the dishonesty of posters who misrepresent my statements and who will not under any circumastances address what I say rather than making stupid rhetorical points. You used not to be among them. Unlike Usual Suspect, I am not prepared to allow the collective bullying of you and some of the other grrls to stop me having my say. If you don't like the message, tough.

There are about 3 or 4 regular male posters to topics such as this and many more women. The situation means violence is not possible, yet you still try to claim that the big, bad men are intimidating you. What a pissweak response.

So far, you're the 5th recent female poster to accuse me of misogyny, yet not one of you has been able to point to a specific incidence in my posts. Frankly, that's also pissweak. Either put up or shut up, the lot of you', instead of crying about the big, bad men and running when challenged. You'd get much more respect, if that's what you're after.

Meanwhile, the collective henpecking continues unabated. I suppose I should simply ignore that and "be a man", eh?

I have not seen any person here dismiss female upon male domestic violence. NOT ONE.

There's posts that point out the overwhelming prevalence of male offenders , just look at the statistics from Fractelle. Presenting reality as it is, is not being anti male. But antiseptic is way, way too thick to know that.

Antiseptic is very welcome to talk as much as he likes about female upon male violence, I doubt even one person here would even slightly object to that. It's been said time and time again here that we all object to female upon male domestic violence. I've figured him out quite well, you see the reason he concentrates on female upon male violence, when replying to posts that write about male upon female violence, is because it turns out he's actually not the least bit interested in male upon female domestic violence, his real motivation is he just can't accept that women get the better of him in debate here. Therefore he adopts an opposing, rigid stance, and does it just for the sake of adopting an opposing, rigid stance (he doesn't necessarily believes what he writes in totality). "THE" motivation is that he gets the better of those women.

He sees defeat by a woman as a knife to the heart.

Look at his language in his last post. He believes he's superior to the women here and it's shown within his language, "what a pissweak response"; "collective bullying of you and some of the other girls" (isn't it interesting how bullies are always the first to complain about being bullied); "don't try to project your emotional pain and blame me"; "I'm fed up with the dishonesty of posters"; "stupid rhetorical posts"; "you still try to claim that the big bad men are intimidating you"; "crying about the big bad men"; "the collective henpecking continues unabated"; "running when challenged".

His language says it all, and gives a great insight. He blames those nasty women for all his pain in this topic. It's THEIR fault: Hmmm, I've heard that before!

He's incredibly thick.

phillips, no one denies that serious offenders are often male. In fact, they're very often the same males, time after time, assaulting paople of either gender. The response, however, has projected women as always sacrosanct and men never rate a mention except as offenders. I have not genderised the situation, nor have I emphasised female-initiated violence. Glad to have cleared that up, thanks for the opportunity for setting the record straight.

Your responses to my posts seem to indicate that you struggle with English comprehension. I hope you don't occupy any sort of responsible position?

Oh gawd, he's still at it.

Ok, show where anybody here has displayed that women are always sacrosanct. Don't forget that's your word, "always".

You have gereralised the situation by not not giving 'due' recognition to the overwhelming majority of male, serious DV culprits. There's been no recognition by you of the nature of the prevalence of male DV culprits. You've written that common street violence is no different to DV. You've avoided the very nature of most DV situations and are happy in your denial.

Guilty conscience maybe? I'd love to get the "other side" of the argument about your bitterness towards your ex. You really need to let go of your bitter past and move on my boy. You'll be happier. You can't continue to live in bitterness and misery.

JW - Antiseptic isn't bitter and miserable, just like he doesn't have negative views on women. Just ask him.

I see that US has spat the dummy again. Don't worry, he'll probably be back under a different pseudonym.

CW, you're quite right, I don't have negative views of women. I do have negative views of dimwits and forelock-tuggers, however.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clear that up.

Cleared up only in "your" tiny mind.

It's obvious you have a negative view of women.......UNLESS......they agree with you and are happy to submit.

He even wrote here that violence against women is no different compared to violence against men. All he has to do is go to the morgue and hospitals and courts and prisons to understand the stupidity of that statement.

I suppose God created the smart and the stupid. Unfortunately antiseptic falls into the latter category.

Fractelle, thanks for that material. Also thanks for the willingness to listen that you and others do give. Sometimes it gets awkward, I've talked about my own experiences to highlight failings in support services and a significant problem with a genderised campaign often dealing with lower level behaviours. My ex believed that it was ok for women to hit men but that men should never ever hit back. A message reinforced by the media and never rebutted by political leaders.

I don't really identify with Anansi's comment "Both of you have had to deal with terrible emotional and psychological abuse" although there was abuse and at times it seemed like a nightmare. There were good times as well and for the most part my ex and I get on well now. She's a welcome visitor in my home as long as my boundaries are respected here and we try and work together for good outcomes for us all. Not always smooth but far better than it could be.

I don't want my experiences to have to have been "terrible emotional and psychological abuse" for someone else to have been willing to tell her not to hit. There is stuff I got wrong as well, we were two people who were not good for each other. Conflicts of values, beliefs etc. All too often I could not find my way through the conflicting pressures to meet many of her needs. Relationships are messy things and rarely all one persons fault and I don't wish to portray my experiences as though everything bad was my ex's fault.

R0bert

R0bert: "My ex believed that it was ok for women to hit men but that men should never ever hit back. A message reinforced by the media and never rebutted by political leaders."

This may be true for some women, and I agree humour is often drawn from this image in media representations. There are families in which violence is the 'normal' method in which arguments are settled. My work in public housing confirms this. However, my direct experience also confirms police statistics that more often PHYSICAL violence is perpetrated by males (adult and teenage).

Why I and my female peers are upset is that every time we speak out we are told by males like Antiseptic that we are emotional, lacking in logic or hen-pecking (collectively!), this is the language of a bully. On another thread recently Antiseptic complained that the child care group he attended were cold towards him, I tried gently to suggest that perhaps his response to the women was 'a little prickly'. Trying to communicate with people like Antiseptic, Usual Suspect and others I can't recall the names of, is like walking on eggshells. Living with my ex-husband was like walking on eggshells. I didn't know then and I don't know now whether what I say will set of a stream of abuse such as the above.

R0bert what all victims of DV desperately need is to be believed, taken seriously. I understand why you feel that you haven't, but there are now organisations in place to help men. Can't you see that the same is happening here to women who have had the courage to speak out about their experiences and being told that we are trying to belittle the male experience. This is very dishonest. Not by you BTW.

Cont'd

Cont'd

The facts are simply this:

Domestic Violence happens; to about 70% of women committed by men and 30% of men committed by women.

In overall violence, streets, pubs, sports ground etc violence is predominately male against male.

No doubt R0bert, you want the violent women to take responsibility for their actions, so do I, but what I see here (not from you) but there is a concerted effort by Antiseptic et al to paint male violence into a corner - an unacknowledged 'elephant in the room' and I would like to know why.

Why have my posts been derided?
I am a capable and succinct writer, a lot of my work has been producing analytical and comprehensive reports when I was employed in the public sector. I know claims that my writing is illogical is simply name calling - bully tactics.

I can only conclude that my posts and that of other female posters are being treated like this in order to silence us. Do you have another explanation for the hostility spouted by these men?

R0bert do you experience a similar hostility from women when you discuss your abuse? If so, does this make you feel you are not taken seriously or that you are not being listened to - silenced in fact?

Antiseptic
Why do you not want to acknowledge that domestic violence against women and children occurs and is a huge cost for our society?

I am not saying 'all men are bad' - and I never have. I have had and still do have a number of wonderful supportive men in my life.

Antiseptic - What do YOU want?

Fractelle:"don't know now whether what I say will set of a stream of abuse such as the above."

Yet again, show me where I have "abused" you, which would be a fact, rather than a projection onto me of your own emotional response to my words.

It seems to me that all of the collective hen-pecking I've been the subject of comes down to the fact that I'm not a "gentleman", rather than anything substantive I've had to say. You, to your credit, have at least had sufficient courage to address me directly, even if you were actually responding to your own perceptions rather than my words.

Fractelle:"women who have had the courage to speak out about their experiences and being told that we are trying to belittle the male experience. This is very dishonest"

Yes, it is dishonest to make the claim you do in this quote. Who has said that? Specific instance, thanks, because the only ones I can recall claiming their experience is "belittled" are some of the women. To that end, the same people have tried to limit the discussion entirely to domestic violence when far more men are victims of violence in general, sometimes from women. If DV is a serious issue, then the far larger class of male violence victims surely deserve at least as much attention.

This topic was based on Rudd's absolute statement that violence against women is unacceptable under any circumstance. Why are you so desperate to avoid the same message being given in relation to men?

Fractelle:"a concerted effort by Antiseptic et al to paint male violence into a corner"

Show me examples. While you're looking, you'll come across lots of posts in which I acknowledge men are the more common offenders.

Fractelle:"Why do you not want to acknowledge that domestic violence against women and children occurs and is a huge cost for our society?"

When have I done that? Why do you not want to acknowledge far more men are victms of violence than women and children?

I invite all the people who antiseptic is attacking to read my post on another topic, here's a link to it:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2162&page=11
My post is near the bottom of the page in the link.

It shows antiseptic has real problems with women and will stoop to personal accusation, "phony" personal accusation.

He needs help, and he needs it badly.

I think any comments he makes about women, on any topic, should be taken in the context of his behaviour here. He can't be taken seriously.

SallyG says:

"I checked every single post written by JW since he's been on this OLO website. I guess antiseptic wasn't expecting anybody to take the time check up on him.

Yes, [Antiseptic] made it up." [The claim that JW had posted at Friday, 29 August 2008 2:18:41 AM, and the quote.]

The only entry in JW's posting history for Friday 29 August 2008 is this:

" 29/08/2008 2:08:20 AM Hear, hear SallyG and AJPhilips. You have both shown there's more than one side to the..."

The totality of that post of JW's is:

"Hear, hear SallyG and AJPhilips.

You have both shown there's more than one side to the topic of ADHD, and I welcome your intelligent and well thought out contributions, based on your personal experiences and knowledge. Thank you.
Posted by JW, Friday, 29 August 2008 2:08:20 AM"

By contrast, Antiseptic's claimed quote from JW is:

JW:"Note his false implication that I'm a "woman ""

JW:"My husband and I have always done our own thing when it comes to eating. He's quite um...large, while I'm pretty skinny. I keep telling him he'll die young while I'll live to a happy and healthy old age, but he doesn't want to listen. What is it about men and the way so many of them neglect their health? Maybe it's a chromosome abnormality."

Well done, SallyG. I comment because this is a classic illustration of the advantage shaded colour backgrounding to quotes would be to honest discussion. The backgrounding would only be provided by the OLO site software if a user was actually selecting real text from a post to quote. Fractelle, from memory, proposed that in her Technical Support topic 'THE “What We Have Here, is a Failure to Communicate” POLL', one quarter back.

Fractelle: "I am a capable and succinct writer, ..."

Too right. And a very tenacious debater. I otherwise have little to contribute to this discussion, DV being outside my experience. Courageous posting, Fractelle.

Apparently Bronwyn replied to the same post Anti has been castigated for making up...

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2081#44058

The actual post is missing, but Bronwyn's reply remains.

Who gives a toss really though, I was just interested how some people could bother to look through 100s of posts to attack someone. I think it shows a lot more about the searchers than anti. (I remembered the topic so just happened to look there out of interest.)

CJ will be pleased to hear I wont be returning under this or any other name this time, I just keep getting the emails when this topic is updated, and fell into temptation. The goings on above is further reinforcement for me to stay away.

There are at least 3 replies to the post of JW's that has been removed. One by GrahamY and two by Bronwyn. JW is a liar and SallyG is either a sock puppet, or knowingly assisting her in her lie. How embarrassing for them to be so inept.

Forrest Gump, I'll take that apology now, thanks.

I don't expect any of you will show the guts to apologise the way Country Gal did when she was shown to be wrong about one of my posts. It speaks volumes for the cowardly nature of the pack.

Antiseptic,

My post made it quite clear that I was not participating in any contention that you may be involved in within, or outside the thread. The claim of SallyG that words attributed to JW in a post having a specific timestamp by you were made up was a checkable one.

SallyG described how she checked for the alleged quote.

I applaud checking.

I checked on SallyG, looking through the user posting history of JW. There was no post matching the timestamp you had claimed. The content of the only post of similar date was entirely different to the claimed quotes. There was no marker indicating any post had been removed: indeed, I don't think OLO currently has any provision for marking where a post may have been removed, another point that has recently been raised in the Technical Support threads.

The point I was making was that SallyG's contention that the quote was made up provided a perfect illustration of how an intra-Forum quotation background colour feature would make such contentions a thing of the past. The way such a background colour feature works is such as to require the user quoting to actually visit the post and select the quote.

As you yourself point out, the post from which the quote is claimed to come is not there. It has evidently been taken down. That being the case, nobody has any business purporting to quote from it, at least not with any degree of credibility. Was a quotation background colour feature to have been available on OLO at the time, your own claim that it was a genuine and accurate quotation would have been backed up by the software was it to have been true.

The making of such a point requires no apology, to you or any other user. I was making it because it was a feature Fractelle had expressed pronounced interest in within the TS threads, Fractelle having made a tenacious and courageous posting contribution to this thread, to the quality of which the feature, had it been available, may have contributed.

Fractelle, I'm not completely unbiased when it comes to Usual Suspect and Antiseptic so I know my observations may be coloured.

I think much of the criticism of them ignores the context of the attacks they often face (and give). With my most dispassionate glasses on they often seem to be under so much attack for what others think of them that it would be very difficult to provide balanced sensitive responses to those who disagree with them. Some posters seem to never engage them in discussion of the topic but rather post entirely on their perceived personal failings. I know I don't do well when I feel attacked from all sides.

I try to give posters the benefit of the doubt (I don't always succeed). I try not to assume that those who say things I don't like about men are necessarily anti-male and I'm not convinced that the evidence exists for most of the claims made about Usual Suspect and Antiseptic. It can be difficult to move past previous conflicts and harsh words. Sometimes it takes a determination by one party to try and engage on an issue committing to putting aside insults and perceived insults. You and I got off to a bad start and chose to move on from that. My suggestion, put aside what you believe about them. See if you can turn the interactions around. Be the one who does not offer insult or respond with insult and see if your perceptions change.

There is little to lose by doing so and potentially much to gain.

In regard to hostility when discussing my experiences, yes I've had it in the past. Not always from women. I've been told to grow some balls, to be a man etc. I've been accused of being an abuser. Even in this discussion the claim that by wanting violence against men spoken about I'm somehow trying to cover up violence against women has been hurtfull. Maybe I've interpeted that differently to the way it has been meant but it's still a hurtfull claim.

R0bert

Forrest gumpp:"As you yourself point out, the post from which the quote is claimed to come is not there. It has evidently been taken down. That being the case, nobody has any business purporting to quote from it, at least not with any degree of credibility."

Rubbish. The post was removed because I quoted from it. It thus became an embarrassing piece of evidence that JW/SallyG wanted removed. If GrahamY and Bronwyn had not quoted from it in the original thread, her attempted deception would have worked.

You do owe me an apology, because you jumped in feet-first to support someone who claimed that I made up the quote, assuming me to be dishonest. I am not.

I don't see that your colour-coding idea is of much use, frankly. Far better for the moderators to simply not comply with the wishes of posters wanting to hide their dishonesty by deleting old posts.

R0bert:"Some posters seem to never engage them in discussion of the topic but rather post entirely on their perceived personal failings."

The discussion here has been the subject of an attempted hijack by a few members associated with the DV industry. As usual, they want us to only discuss the topic of their choosing and any efforts to widen the discussion are resisted violently. I note the Pynchme has not had the good grace to apologise for her violent, controlling behaviour toward me and Romany, as usual has had her little snipe and scuttled off rather than answer any questions she may find difficult. At the risk of being accused of "belittling" the experience of victims of violence, I can only point out that this rthread is a clear demonstration of why we should not allow emotions to rule our responses to these big societal issues. It is also a clear demonstration of the hypocrisy that is at the heart of the DV industry in its present form.

OK, one last post.

'Some posters seem to never engage them in discussion of the topic but rather post entirely on their perceived personal failings'

Wow. Someone understands. I thought I was going crazy.

I had recently tried to use less emotive language in my posts, but the last few topics I've just been attacked as soon as I said anything. Fair enough if you don't want to reply to someone, but if that's the case, why snipe at them and accuse them of this and that while you're ignoringing their points.

It just shows that once a perception of you is made, fair or not, that's what you will carry around with you.

People are not the slightest bit interested in the actual contents of your post, they see themselves in a war where they actually go to the lengths to sift through hundreds of posts, and then twist them and take them out of context, just to score points. So the topic at hand becomes null and void, your comments are not worth writing down, as nobody addresses the points you make anyway.

Then when you address people and the points they make, you are ignored, but then used as an example of bullying, vitriol and abuse, which I can only assume is based on some previous topic because you look over your posts and all you have done is disputed their position.

Antiseptic, you might find that there was a lot less angst if you put less effort into responding to attacks and focussed on the discussion - says me after some recent posts :(

To get discussion happening someone has to decide they don't want to fight and stop doing so even when they feel attacked. Thats never easy but it can be much more productive than continual bunfights with other posters. Try a polite rebuttal of comments you don't like and another take on what you are saying and see if that makes a change.

I don't like a lot of the criticisms you cop from others but to get that to change you may have to do things differently (fair or not). It's hard to rebut either side when both are playing the same game (or enough on both sides are doing it to not be able to tell who said what).

R0bert

I find it amazing that Fractelle for example, from the get-go, talks of 'callousness directed at women', 'vitriol that pours out whenever violence against women..' in her first post.

This shows that people see any gender based topic as a continuation of a war. I really believe Fractelle is hurt by all this, but the effect of her comments is to perpetuate the conflict.

Then the rest of her posts are full of accusations of bullying and name calling and her being silenced and dismissed, and I really cant see any evidence for this. Certainly evidence started to appear once people got their backs up from being accused of things they didn't do. Perhaps a self fulfilling prophecy? Perhaps people should identify directly who they are acusing of bad behaviour, and what words they are offended by. If not, the designated 'et al', Usual Suspects', and 'some male posters' will always get their back up.

BTW: The most interesting post, that has been sidestepped by all the posters here saying there is support out there for men, is roberts list of quotes from the sites which men would presumibly have to go to if in an abusive situatiuon.

Antiseptic: "I note the Pynchme has not had the good grace to apologise for her violent, controlling behaviour toward me and Romany, as usual has had her little snipe and scuttled off rather than answer any questions she may find difficult."

There is no evidence of that; I therefore haven't anything to apologize for, but here you are being accusatory, demanding and nasty again. I don't know what you mean about controlling Romany or anyone. You'll need to point that out to me.

I'll read back a bit and see what's been happening - has Romany said that? As to "scuttled" - that's derogatory. I have always been erratic in my comings and goings here; that's because I often travel with work and sometimes only get hurried access to a shared computer somewhere.

Ask whatever questions you like and as always I'll answer as well as I can.

R0bert and anyone else who may be interested: This was an interesting site that I found recently. I'm posting the link in case you haven't come across it yet:

http://talk.gelworks.com.au/ManCont.nsf/MensGroups!OpenPage

The Special Advisors page is full of interesting things and there is a forum section.

Usual Suspct:

"I really believe Fractelle is hurt by all this, but the effect of her comments is to perpetuate the conflict."

1. So what you're saying is that the solution to any conflict of opinion is for Fractelle to be quiet rather than express her opinion.
2. Try imagining that the posts you two make are done by a woman with yourselves or any man as recipients. Maybe then you will be able to apply some empathic understanding to the situation.

Antiseptic: I just reread your post and I think I misread it the first time. You were complaining about both me and Romany, rather than saying that I had been violent and controlling towards you both.
If I have it straight now then you may disregard that part of my previous post. Btw: I don't know what you mean by "the DV industry". I am not part of a dedicated DV service. Even then, I don't think DV can be considered an industry.

R0bert:"you might find that there was a lot less angst if you put less effort into responding to attacks and focussed on the discussion"

I do focus on the discussion. I have made several posts to this thread in which I make every effort to bring the discussion back to the topic quite specifically. It is those efforts that have lead to most of the attacks.

Whilst I do respond when attacked although I rarely offer mere abuse. In this thread, I have endeavoured to give those attacking me enough rope to demonstrate the hypocrisy of their position, which they have duly done. My point in doing that was to give a clear demonstration of an escalating cycle of abuse from those who would claim that violence is entirely the responsibility of men. I believe I succeeded.

R0bert:"you may have to do things differently (fair or not)"

I respond to people in the way they respond to me, on the whole. On these forums that is entirely with our words. Any reputation we have is backed, quite literally, by our word. I stand by mine in this case.

However, you make a fair point. We all have the propensity for getting carried away with the argument and it takes two to make a fight. I'll try to turn the other cheek, even if that's an arse cheek occasionally...

I'm puzzled by some quote and the apparent removal of a post.

How does one delete a post ? I didn't think that was possible. Is there some button here that I can't see ?

If the post was removed by a moderator or something after it was quoted, that must have been done very quickly. Or if it was removed before the quote was done... is there a duplicate record kept somewhere ? I'd appreciate it if someone would explain the technicals to me. Thanks.

Pynchme,

'So what you're saying is that the solution to any conflict of opinion is for Fractelle to be quiet rather than express her opinion.'

No. This is, as far as I can see, a deliberate misrepresentation of my argument. What I'm saying is to bring up past grievences at the start of every new topic has the effect of continuing the conflict from other topics.

'Try imagining that the posts you two make are done by a woman with yourselves or any man as recipients. Maybe then you will be able to apply some empathic understanding to the situation.'

I don't need to. I get at least as much as I supposedly give. Maybe you could try this yourself when you attempt to paint anyone who wants recognition for male victims of domestic violence as trying to cover up violence towards female victims.

US: "Maybe you could try this yourself when you attempt to paint anyone who wants recognition for male victims of domestic violence as trying to cover up violence towards female victims."

Now you see that is either deliberate misrepresentation of my posts and opinions, or you are seeing my opinion through some sort of victim mentality.

You won't find any post by me that denies the importance of issues concerning male victims of DV; or that it happens. Quite the reverse. I have already posted my experience in meeting one or two male victims over the years and as I said, I stood for them and worked on their behalf just as I have and would for any female victim.

However, I will argue in opposition to Antiseptic's claim that there is no qualitative difference between different types of violence.

I have also urged men to tell their own stories; rather than trying to counter violence against men by seeking to establish parity with the victimization of females which, in my opinion, is unproductive and inaccurate. In fact, I can't see any reason why some groups try to do that.

I also think I have asked and if I haven't yet, then I will now - that if men are really concerned about male victims of violence, why isn't there at least as much of a concerted effort to address the victimization of men (and boys) by other men. Why is male on male violence a non-issue for you all when it constitutes most of the violence that occurs ?

I truly don't know why this subject seems only to result in "bigotry".

This is where women speak against violence against them in an unbalanced way and where men seem to respond in kind.

Both sides are guilty.

The simple facts of the matter are that when one PERSON attacks another, irrespective of gender, the attacked person has a legal right to defend themselves with reasonable force.

I am stunned by the seeming intransigence of various posters who seem to want to PIN the issue of violence on one side or the other.

Some women are dangerously violent.
Some men are dangerously violent.

ALL violence of that nature is bad.

If statistics prove that it seems to prevail more with men.. than that is a fact.. it doesn't negate the right of a man to lawfully defend himself... why even argue against this?

The arbiter is THE LAW..not subjective opinion.

Even if statistics show that most DV is perpetrated by men... it does not, repeat NOT imply that men should not defend themselves with reasonable force, preferably restraint, but if a woman has a knife in her hand and is coming at him..them I'm sorry but kicks, punches and even a chunk of 2x4, a baseball bat, a golf club is absolutely legitimate and lawful.

Can anyone deny this? no ? good..now stop arguing please.

Then..perhaps take the next step of seeking to develop personal strategies for anger management and trigger avoidance.

My preferred strategy would be to recognize that new life in Christ will transform a person.

Bloody 'ell.

1. Thank you Forrest, while I don’t always agree with you at least we keep the doors of communication open. Cheers.

2. Antiseptic, I asked you what you wanted, I didn't ask to be attacked (again). You claim: "I do focus on the discussion." Really? Then why didn't you answer my question instead of yet again referring to women as "collective hen peckers"? If you've forgotten, it was the same question I asked R0bert.

3. UsualSuspect:
"I really believe Fractelle is hurt by all this, but the effect of her comments is to perpetuate the conflict."

Yes I am hurt, deeply, therefore I should be silent?

3. R0bert, you claimed to be irate when I stated there are those who seek to silence the female voice, please refer to above comment from U-Suspect.


4. Pynchme: "... if men are really concerned about male victims of violence, why isn't there at least as much of a concerted effort to address the victimization of men (and boys) by other men. Why is male on male violence a non-issue for you all when it constitutes most of the violence that occurs?"

I'd really like an answer to that one as well.

Celivia and R0bert have shown many times that DV is not only a male on female crime, (according to ABS), 30% is female attacking male. All of us has stated that violence is wrong. Some of us believe that violence in the home is less reprehensible than that outside the home. Many of us disagree with that.

It is that word 'disagree' which causes the problems; brings on the sexual stereotyping insults. I NEVER wanted to get this involved with this argument. This topic is too close to the bone for me and I know bullying when I see it - I am not a fool. I know that the facts and research and references I and others have supplied have been completely ignored by those who are clearly affronted that a woman dares to speak out.

Perhaps we need a new topic: “When a woman dares to speak?"

Pynchme:"Why is male on male violence a non-issue for you all when it constitutes most of the violence that occurs?"

Go and read the numerous posts in which I have stated that serious violence is most frequently perpetrated by men. In some of them I've made the point that the same offenders often feature in violence directed at people of both genders. I have also said several times that violence against males affects significantly more victims than violence against women, with almost no response, yet you now introduce it as though it had never been mentioned.

If you expect me to put any effort into treating what you say with respect, then do me the courtesy of behaving the same way, please.

Pynchme says:

"I'm puzzled by some quote and the apparent removal of a post. How does one delete a post ? I didn't think that was possible. Is there some button here that I can't see ?"

Good. Its not just me. Whilst I will be the first to admit that I might miss noticing what to others may be an obvious feature of the Forum, I don't believe a user can delete a post. I believe a user may request OLO that a post be removed, but that can only be done by the moderator, and presumably then only if removal was warranted in terms of OLO policies and Forum rules.

I once indicated that a post I had absent-mindedly made as a relative non-sequitur in a thread could be removed if OLO wanted. No subsequent argument at that point had been made in the thread. That post remains up to this day.

The ability of a user to remove a post unilaterally would be akin to allowing the censoring or alteration of Hansard, upon which subject my views are on record elsewhere. I doubt it is ever allowed.

Antiseptic, in relation to this claimed post deletion, says:

"Rubbish. The post was removed because I quoted from it. It thus became an embarrassing piece of evidence that JW/SallyG wanted removed. If GrahamY and Bronwyn had not quoted from it in the original thread, her attempted deception would have worked. You do owe me an apology, because you jumped in feet-first to support someone who claimed that I made up the quote, assuming me to be dishonest. I am not."

I jumped in feet-first in support of checking facts. I checked the claims of someone who had claimed to have checked relevant facts. My check supported their (SallyG's) claim. If what you claim above is both possible and correct, I can understand your being upset. In that circumstance your beef is with OLO rules and moderation policy, not with me.

I made no assumptions. Just checked claims and facts.

Fractelle,

OT. Linux?

Fractelle,

' therefore I should be silent?'. What I'm saying is to bring up past grievences at the start of every new topic has the effect of continuing the conflict from other topics. Still taking my comments out of context and twisting them around to play the victim I see.

'It is that word 'disagree' which causes the problems'
Yes it is, when you continually equate it with bullying. You reserve the right to disagree, but if a male disagrees with you he is a bully trying to silence you.

Why is it yourself and pynchme can feel ‘silenced’ and ‘bullied’, but when antiseptic feels ‘hen-pecked’, that in itself is considered an attack?

pynchme,

‘pretend that women are not experiencing DV ?'

'For some reason women must be silenced'

'tell everyone to shut up'

‘swept under the carpet again'

' hide the effects'

'bury the effects for the majority '

'trying to shut women up'

'Ignoring or minimizing the fact of violence against women '

'denying women's experiences '

'minimize violence against women'

I got bored in the end there were so many, I deleted 10 more for room. Most of these quotes are in response to people wanting just some representation of female on male violence in the DV campaign.

'However, I will argue in opposition to Antiseptic's claim that there is no qualitative difference between different types of violence.'

So would I. But I have constantly stated I don't want all violence to be the focus, just all domestic violence, which is what the campaign is about. Your reply to me... 'Yes indeed you are trying to hide the effects' of domestic violence against women.

'Why is male on male violence a non-issue '
As I have said, it's widely recognised, not hidden like DV. My focus is purely on DV, and a truthful portrayal of domestic disputes that doesn’t exclusively focus on males being sole aggressors, and put men who yell in the same category as men who beat someones head in. And I’m not looking for parity, just an honest holistic approach, whatever the percentages.

Forrest Gump, I removed the quote. It did exist.

Pynchme, "rather than trying to counter violence against men by seeking to establish parity with the victimization of females which, in my opinion, is unproductive and inaccurate. In fact, I can't see any reason why some groups try to do that."

My opening post on this thread contained the following statement "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?" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2153#45649

I also said "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."

I stated my preference for keeping the dabate away from the numbers "I'm trying to keep this discussion away from the relative proportions of DV perpetrated by both genders, thats a whole other discussion but if you are in the least interested in some serious studies on that I'll provide some links to material." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2153#45827

Apart from the debate over the truth of the claim the approach taken by those supporting a genderised campaign is a significant factor.

"Do a body count.

Reflect on how many men are killed by women,
and how many women are killed by men." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2153#45725
You want to make it about numbers and then can't understand when we give numbers.

On the opening page Sofisu tried to imply that those of us opposed to a genderised campaign are probably abusers "When will men stand up with Mr Rudd on this issue without trying to defend what well may be their own actions.?" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2153#45698

Other than Usual Suspect nobody challenged that particularly vile suggestion. It's not as clear cut as some try and make out.

R0bert

Forrest Gumpp:"If what you claim above is both possible and correct, I can understand your being upset. In that circumstance your beef is with OLO rules and moderation policy, not with me."

I have no beef with OLO's moderation policy if it permits someone to request their post be withdrawn. I can envisage all sorts of reasons for doing so, some trivial and some not. I do, however, have a beef with someone jumping in with their size 11s offering congratulatory messages to someone who made scurrilous accusations about me in the full knowledge that the post she was referring to had been deleted. i have a beef with you because you have still not acknowledged that you did so. i told you what had actually happened, offering the evidence of other posts referring to the deleted one and you still referred to my statement as a "claim", which you never did in your original post to SallyG.

As the old saying goes, "better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it and remove all doubt". Good advice for some, I think...

Forrest

Been rather too busy to deal with linux/abuntu transfer ATM, but thanks for the inquiry.

Usual Suspect - I have provided a great deal of information regarding the rates of DV between men and women - that you choose to ignore them is not my problem just a very selective interpretation of my posts on your part.

R0bert, apparently it is acceptable for you to speak out on your past experiences but not for me, U-Suspect: "What I'm saying is to bring up past grievences (sic) at the start of every new topic has the effect of continuing the conflict from other topics."

Double standard? Absolutely. BTW I did enter this discussion at the start, but after tiring of the personal insults directed towards Romany, Pynchme et al.

Anti- 'I respond in kind' -septic:

No doubt life is very difficult finding offense as you do in the slightest disagreement if uttered by a woman.

Finally, a quote:

"Make no mistake about it: Women want a men's movement. We are literally dying for it. If you doubt that, just listen to women's desperate testimonies of hope that the men in our lives will become more nurturing toward children, more able to talk about emotions, less hooked on a spectrum of control that extends from not listening through to violence, and less repressive of their own human qualities that are called 'feminine' - and thus suppressed by cultures in which men dominate...

In short the question we must ask - and both men and women must keep asking -is not why women can't escape male violence, but why men do it. Is the men's movement uprooting the politics of patriarchy, or just giving it a new face?"

(Steinam, 1992: v-vii)

Fractelle:"No doubt life is very difficult finding offense as you do in the slightest disagreement if uttered by a woman."

Not at all. This forum is a place in which we are all equal. I treat posters as people, regardless of gender. Why do you expect me to give you special dispensation to be exempt from my comments if I disagree with you? What's special about you?

Fractelle:"In short the question we must ask - and both men and women must keep asking -is not why women can't escape male violence, but why men do it. Is the men's movement uprooting the politics of patriarchy, or just giving it a new face?""

As I have said several times, and you continue to ignore, most violence is perpetrated by a small number of people. Often the same people are responsible for violence toward others of both genders. Most men never commit violence, against a woman or anyone else. If the majority of men are not violent, why do many repeat offenders manage to have multiple relationships? Why do some victims seem to manage to find multiple abusers?The fact is that some women are attracted to men who have a propensity for violent dominance, just as some men seem to have a need to be under the "ownership" of a dominant, controlling woman.

However, most women are neither of those things and that suits most men.

Some women abuse the genuine victims by using false allegations for Family Court advantage, which is where I got my interest in the topic.

Fractelle,

' I have provided a great deal of information regarding the rates of DV between men and women '

What's that got to do with anything. . The game of my stats and studies are better than yours that robert and SJF normally play bores me to tears.

I'm still not sure you understand what I was saying about past grievences (sic). I am talking about grievences (sic) with other posters, not with your grievences (sic) to do with DV you have experienced. You have entered the last few gender topics full of this 'certain posters are bullies, I wont be silenced, level of vitriol comparable to violence' vicim speak.

You talk about bullying from the male posters, but on this topic it's the female posters trawling through 100s of posts from topics long gone in an attempt to assasinate the character and discredit male posters, rather than debating the topic. JW, SallyG tried this agsinst anti, Romany added her own very nasty distortion of one of my comments ages ago, which I remember clarifing at the time. You have also admitted twice in the past you were baiting me and pushing my buttons.

Why cant you see these things go both ways, and that your 'bullying' is identical to anti's 'henpecking'?

' if uttered by a woman'
That's just rubbish. I think anti is equally vigilant in firing and returning fire to male and female posters alike.

Lets face it, even you know what's going on with your constant cries of bullying.
'Living with my ex-husband was like walking on eggshells'. But anti and myself are not you husband. If we disagree with you it's not abuse. You have just as much power, probably more as you have more support for your arguments from OLO posters, as we have. The whole bully and silencing thing exists inside you.

Next topic, try and not jump in with the first post claiming to be a perpetual victim of all the male posters that disagree with you.

Antiseptic & U.Suss,
I specifically stated on another thread that I was not interested in responding to you two. I realise now that being ignored can be hurtful and in fact engender as much bad feeling as outright hostility.

So: - The reason I don't like engaging with either of you is illustrated in the last few pages of this thread. While I am not for one moment accusing the two of you of being wholly responsible, it is true that so many threads degenerate into scrapping with you two. I don't shrink from a good debate or exchange of views but pointless repetition with no chance of anyone breaking through to the other I consider to be a waste of my time.

Even as I write the foregoing I envisage bristling comments concerning what makes my time more important than anyone elses ...and so on. But the fact is that I do work in a very time-consuming area and am daily confronting the real-life needs and problems of hundreds of young men and women - and am available to them 24/7 - so, at the risk of providing ammunition for posts to come, I merely state my no frills reason.

U. Suss's comments regarding my "If I could have king-hit him, of course I would" definitively illuminated the fact that he doesn't realise that my apples are his oranges, while Antiseptics nomenclature in labelling me a "man-hater" proved he either has never read anything I've written or that he chooses to believe I am untruthful in all I write. When in fact, he called me a liar on a previous thread - probably the most insulting and serious charge a person can level at another, I realised further interaction would be counter productive.

If I appeared to snipe and scuttle: I consider that Robert and I reached an acceptable level of concession and further discussion was unnecessary. As well I am often away and/or pressure of work precludes contributing.

Romany

You are under no obligation to offer excuses for not being available 24/7 to be verbally abused by the likes of U-Suss and Anti.

Like you I have made every effort to look at the argument from all sides - levels of DV and male-on-male violence. It doesn't matter what I write it is reviled. I have allowed these men to yank my chain, something I was trying to avoid. And all I have to show for it are flashbacks to a past I really need to leave behind - and for the most part I have.

I have a highly tuned sense of justice, and loathe seeing anyone bullied, however on this topic I clearly need to approach it from a Buddhist perspective of detachment.

Ciao

I think I figured out what antiseptic did regarding him altering JW's post. I realise now the post really did exist, but antiseptic changed the wording (based on other people's quotes of what JW wrote) because nobody here could go back and check, and he knew he'd get away with it. The post was deleted, and nobody could check the authenticity of antiseptic's re-writing of it. In my opinion all he did was re-write the basics of the original post, while altering or adding one or two bits. Jw has said a few times here he is a man, and he sure writes like a man.

Here's a link to my full description in that other topic (where the bitter antiseptic charges CSA employees of criminal acts, and continually refuses to back up those charges with evidence) of what I'm pretty sure antiseptic did. My two posts are near the bottom of the page.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2162&page=14

Romany:"it is true that so many threads degenerate into scrapping with you two"

What do you think is the reason for that, Romany?

I don't recall ever labelling you a "man-hater" and if I did I apologise. I don't consider you that way. In fact, with only a couple of exceptions, the women on this forum are entirely sensible people. What inevitably happens is that one of the exceptions pipes up and hijacks the thread by attacking one of the men, usually doing what she can to enlist support from the crowd along the way. That's what I meant by "pack-bullying". Sometimes it's a constant barrage of snipe and scuttle, which drowns out the discussion. Others, it's a collective henpacking, with one after the other coming in saying the same thing, while never addressing the previously-made response at all.

I don't resile from strong language, as I reckon it elicits strong responses but some people seem unable to disentangle their response to their own feelings from their response to my words. Maybe that's a compliment, albeit backhanded.

Fractelle:"It doesn't matter what I write it is reviled."

You keep saying that and I've asked you to give me examples, which you steadfastly refuse to do.

What you describe as "bullying" antiseptic is EXACTLY what you do. Maybe it takes one to know one. I've read that bullies are always the first to complain about being bullied. Maybe that why you complain so much about women who disagree with you.

On the CSA thread you decided arbitrarily that JW, because he has the same initials as a CSA employee you hate, must be that employee. You even stooped in a post to revealing the identity of that employee and making all sorts of allegations that you have been TOTALLY UNWILLING TO BACK UP WITH PROOF. That's a low-life act to do.

Threads relating to women, divorce, child support, domestic violence degenerate when you're involved because of YOUR behaviour. YOUR unwillingness to not get personal and petty. When people reply to you in the same way, you then get defensive and claim you're being bullied. Bullies are always the first to complain about being bullied.

Romany,

'I specifically stated on another thread that I was not interested in responding to you two. I realise now that being ignored can be hurtful...'

That's fine. It's not being ignored that is hurtful, it's being ignored but still being the target of snipes. It's cowardly, writing in the third person to denigrate people, but thinking you're too good for them to reply to their defence of your remarks about them. You're saying 'I'm talking about you, not to you, so shut up!'

You may be short for time, but by your own admission, not too short of time to scroll through hundreds of posts from someone's history to score points.

Fractelle,

When it comes to ignoring, I think you are the one most upset that your cut and paste googling doesn't envoke raptures of congratulations. Though to be fair, you yourself go into raptures in return for those you respect.

I actually think you may be more upset about what I don't say. You assume I don't care for women or your points, as I don't add all the disclaimers. See, I think if I decided to patronise you from the start, and gave you validation for all your posts and used half my word count showing the common ground we hold, a lot of the animosity would be avoided. I've said before this shouldn't be necessary.

A couple of people have said bullies are always the first to complain about being bullied. I see you always the first to complain, but I don't really think you are a bully. Though I would LOVE for you to point out all this verbal abuse, bullying and silencing from myself that I just cannot see. I know, I know, it's based on your feelings, and you have no need for evidence.

Sorry to have caused you so much angst, I hope you continue to enjoy your OLO experience. I will leave forever in wonder whether the passive aggressive way you position yourself as a victim is a result of your experiences, or just a manipulative tactic.

Fractelle, Romany and others,

Nevermind, they are destined to go the way of the dodo.
More evolved and intelligent men have already adjusted and are discovering the joys of not being tied to some stoopid old stereotype that can only be sustained at the cost of others' well-being. Fractelle, you definitely are NOT being passive aggressive, that is just a sneaky way of blaming the victim (as usual).

R0bert, I'm sorry but I don't even know what the hell you're posting about anymore. If I have time to wade through all of that and work it out, I'll be glad to respond.

Anyway, here is a bit of a laugh that we can all share about the ridiculousness of trying to exert power and control over others:

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=muaAZE0M3LU&feature=related

Antiseptic - thank you for your your apology: while you may not remember having said it, it confounded, gobsmacked and hurt me greatly so I appreciate your having taken the time to rescind it.

You asked why I thought it was that threads involving you and U.Suss degenerated into scraps? I'm unsure if that was a rhetorical question or not and I cannot speak for others. However, from my POV the answer is probably contained further in your post where you state that you use strong language because it invokes strong answers. I respond much better to objective language and reasonable debates, myself.

U. Suss, as you are leaving for good yet again it is perhaps pointless to respond. However, you leave, this time, with the question forever unanswered as to where and when, exactly, I made the "admission" to having gone through hundreds of posts in order to make a point?

Pynchme, in part that last post was a response to you not knowing why mens groups "seek parity" on DV.

I was pointing out that one of the reasons the numbers became a factor in this thread was because of your insistance that we look at the body count. It seems the approach from yourself and others that support the status quo is that men should get nothing in the way of public support as victims of DV because of a particular set of numbers.

My opening post asked why all violence was not included in the PM's statement including violence by men against men yet you have claimed that men wanting the issue of violence by women against men don't care about that one.

At the straight body count (body count being corpses and serious injuries) level amongst adults family violence is genderised, if you insist on defining controlling behaviours by strength along then DV is probably genderised.

We try and point out that other than where physical strength is the predominate factor family violence is not significantly genderised because it's the truth and because it seems the only way that some would consider having the message being against all violence.

The focus on genderisation in family violence is not about having women heard. It's been used to prop up a sense of victimisation, to encourcage women feel superior to men and to give women and unfair advantage in family breakdown. It's been used at the expense of women, men and children perpetuating family violence rather than working to stop it all.

I think it was Romany who made a great post earlier about the need for safety in the home and why there is a difference to violence outside the home. That same message impacts on why sometimes we might speak more about violence against men in the home than out. It seems more achievable to alter beliefs about violence in the home than outside.

R0bert

Pynchme:"passive aggressive, that is just a sneaky way of blaming the victim (as usual)."

Passive aggression is classically exemplified by the aggressor seeking to use indirect means to attack the victim, whilst standing by "helplessly" claiming it is someone else's fault. In some cases, such as my own, the aggressor makes false allegations of misconduct against the victim, in order to elicit a response from the State. My ex got 7 months of unquestioned state support and activity simply for claiming "I feel threatened" with no evidence of what she felt the threat might be or even of any prior record of any kind of threatening behaviour from the victim.

You might say that's an example of the system working as it should, but I say it's yet another example of the ways in which this whole subject has been manipulated by some unscrupulous people for their own ends. Some of them produce self-serving "research" that never seems to do anything but lead to the need for more funding for more "research" Others create "organisations" that have no organising principle other than providing the founder with a means of obtaining funding or boosting their political credentials. Still others, like my ex, are simply coattail riders, using the system to passively-aggressively assault their former partners.

Frankly, the poor buggers who are victims of violence are only of interest to many of these people as a mealticket or a way to satisfy their own passive-aggressive drives.

Where do you fit in to that spectrum?

Romany:"I respond much better to objective language and reasonable debates, myself."

Nice thought, but I've found here that reasoned argument is usually ignored by those with an axe to grind. Look at the number of times I've had to repeat the simple statement that I understand most serious violence perpetrators are male, all because my interlocutors respond emotionally to the rest of my conclusion, which is that male victims of violence are worthy of the same consideration as female victims. Some of the dopier contributors here seem to take that as meaning that I somehow condone violence against women.

Given that my words will be misconstrued by the dimwitted anyway and given that the sensible ones are likely to applaud tham for their "strong support of women" or some such idiocy, I figure I may as well not bother refraining from strong language in the first place. It also has the advantage of drawing strong responses from those who may otherwise be on the fence.

Now that it seems that we have calmed down a little could we perhaps re-cap?: -

No matter what the language/jibes/acrimony etc. used, it seems that all of us here are in agreement on some points viz:-

1) women and men are capable of domestic violence
2) men inflict the heavier casualties on both genders
3) domestic violence campaigns thus far present all domestic violence as being perpetuated by men
4) we carry emotional baggage - and some of us physical baggage in the form of scars etc.
5) there are actually two different forms of domestic violence and this difference needs to be brought to public attention.

Perhaps in future those of us who have taken part in this particular thread could remember that we all agree at least on these points? I don't think we can get anywhere towards resolving these issues if we just keep on squabbling with each other. (After all, there are still HEAPS more things we can squabble over).

We have all heard that there are many more people who read these posts than who contribute to them. So, given that we all agree on these very important points, wouldn't we do better getting these messages across to-gether, than sh1tkicking them around from seperate points of view?

Just a thought, not an attempt at a directive.

I'd be in agreement with those broad definitions, but I'd still like the discussion to include the wider issue of violence in the community. I'd also like to see some of the things currently classified as "violence" described properly, whether it be as controlling behaviours, emotional abuse, manipulative behaviours or whatever is most appropriate. It suits some groups to have the message diluted, as it allows them to quote much higher statistics for the prevalence of "violence", which makes it easier for them to justify their continued existence. If more accurate terms were used, the emotive impact of that word "violence" would be confined to the genuine cases, not used to describe two people in a loud argument in the privacy of their home.

I'm glad you've done the recap, because it was becoming tiresome constantly reiterating the same things.

Antiseptic is attempting to misrepresent what violence is.

Here's examples of violent behaviour in domestic situations:

1...A partner assaults their partner (made MUCH MORE serious if the assaulted partner is smaller and physically weaker, or a child)

2...A partner threatens their partner with assault (made MUCH MORE serious if the threatened partner is smaller and physically weaker, or a child)

3..A stronger and bigger partner uses "physical" stand over tactics in order to exert control over the smaller and weaker partner

Now here's examples of reprehensible behaviour that is NOT violent, it's simply reprehensible:

1...A partner has a manipulative personality and uses mind "games" in order to gain advantage

2...A partner is a control freak and resorts to dishonesty or slander or revenge in order to gain more control

3...A partner is a cruel person and sees an advantage to be gained by degrading their partner verbally without shouting

Antiseptic wants to include various non-violent, reprehensible behaviours within the bounds of "violence" because, yes you guessed it, he sees "WOMEN" as the main perpetrators of this type of behaviour. Indirectly, it's his chance to get back at his ex for what he sees as her manipulation of him, and for her daring to say she felt threatened by him.

You see, by declaring "non violent" behaviours, to be violent, antiseptic then has a claim (in his own mind) to VICTIM STATUS. As everyone who has read his posts knows, he sees himself as a VICTIM.

Now, if he can convince people that he's a "VIOLENCE" victim, he then becomes an EVEN BIGGER VICTIM.

He's a walking, talking, breathing psychiatrist's dream patient. And patients like that never, ever, give an inch...until the day arrives when they gain some personal insight into their behaviour.

I think antiseptic still has quite a way to go yet.

SallyG:"Antiseptic wants to include various non-violent, reprehensible behaviours within the bounds of "violence""

Poor Sally, not only a liar, but unable to comprehend basic English.

I quote from my previous post:"I'd also like to see some of the things currently classified as "violence" described properly, whether it be as controlling behaviours, emotional abuse, manipulative behaviours or whatever is most appropriate."

Poor, poor dishonest Sally.

Even JW isn't as stupid as you are, although she's equally dishonest.

Romany excellent summing up. Thanks.

Antiseptic, I agreed with most of what you said in the post that followed Romany's summing up.

I'd like to see a much stronger emphasis on violence outside the home as well but the issues are yet again different. My impression is that for most of us staying away from night clubs and their vicinities at night and the early hours of the morning will dramatically reduce the risks of being the victim of violence. Not being drunk in public will reduce the risks of being a victim of violence. If violence occurs in other places where circumstances make it difficult for me to make different choices the law is lokely to be able to help.

Some occupations carry with them high risks of being the victim of assault - Ambo's being one that has been brought to my attention a few times recently. They are more difficult to resolve.

SallyG, you could put aside your dislike of Antiseptic for a while and try reading what he has actually said rather than misrepresenting his comments. One of the points we have been making all along is that the government campaigns portray controlling behaviours as DV (monitoring a partners emails or SMS's being an example I've seen a few times), behaviours which has nothing to do with physical strength.

I consider assaulting a larger person knowing that they are unlikely to respond in kind then hiding behind your smaller physical size or strength as a defense to be as reprehensible as using greater physical strength or size to intimidate.

R0bert

Thanks antiseptic for your last response to me. You fell directly for a trap instigated my me, totally unaware.

I've known for a long time here, that your claim that we need to separate badgering, controlling and manipulative behaviours from "reaL" violence, is a front put up by you and a TOTAL LIE from you!

Note, that when "YOU" feel badgered, badgering and violence is NOT separated by you. You ONLY separate it when it applies to WOMEN.

How do I know this? Well, there's many past statements you have made. Here's one:

"As a man who has been the VICTIM of State inflicted VIOLENCE istigated by my ex wife"
Posted by antiseptic, Wednesday 1 October 2008, 10:12:04 AM

This proves you are COMPLETELY INSINCERE about your claimed interest in separating genuinely non-violent behaviours from violent behaviours. You have lied, yet again. Your standards are as "DOUBLE" as it gets!

I hope people noticed my statement in my post at the top of the page: "By declaring non violent behaviours to be violent, antiseptic then has a claim (in his own mind) to VICTIM status. As everyone who has read his posts knows, he paints himself as a victim. Now, if he can convince people that he's a VIOLENCE victim, he then becomes an even BIGGER VICTIM".

Therefore, when it "suits his argument" he includes non violent behaviours within the circle of violent behaviours, as PROVEN by his quote in my post immediately above.

Yes, he views himself as a victim of VIOLENCE from his ex and the system. I fuels his clear misogyny and clouds his thinking (although calling it "thinking" is probably going a bit far).

Look at the difference between the behaviours and language used by Robert and antiseptic.

They are both arguing similar points, yet Robert is clearly not a misogynist, while antiseptic clearly engages in misogynistic behaviours. Just look at the behaviour of these two people on the CSA topic as well....the person who attempts to abuse and degrade others is "ANTISEPTIC", not Robert.

When people reply in kind to antiseptic, he complains. It's always the bully who is the first to complain about being bullied.

SallyG, seek help.

R0bert:

<"Pynchme, in part that last post was a response to you not knowing why mens groups "seek parity" on DV.

I was pointing out that one of the reasons the numbers became a factor in this thread was because of your insistance that we look at the body count. It seems the approach from yourself and others that support the status quo is that men should get nothing in the way of public support as victims of DV because of a particular set of numbers.">

What you are claiming about me or anyone else here saying that you deserve no public support is a blatant lie. It floors me because I and others have been distinctly sympathetic towards you in respect of your experience.

The numbers are a factor because of the complete disregard of FACT, and my question was asking why the misogynistic hate groups you favour seek parity. So, why do they?

Not only have you been supplied with links for sources of ssistance, but I have told you more than once that shelters like our local one have a record of extending assistance to males who experience DV.

Not one woman here has been less than supportive of men obtaining assistance, which is much more than can be said for the attitude towards Fractelle and women in general that you and your cohorts display. It's all just me, me and more about me. Given ample opportunity, not one male here has shown the least care or concern about what happens for women and children.

How many men do you know have shown up at A & E with broken eye sockets and other injuries - usually a couple of dozen times before seeking protection ?

How many men live in TERROR for themselves from someone who can and does beat the crap out of them at will ?

How many men do you know have been regularly raped or made perform humiliating sexual acts for their partner's various male acquaintances ?

cont'd

cont'd:

How many men do you know have crossed state lines, under cover, leaving family and employment, to escape some nutter - only to yet again have the perpetrator turn up and threaten them with harm or turn up and actually harm them ?

How many men do you know work but have no access to money; are not allowed to read or use a computer; make friends or even drive ?

How many men do you know have been physically harmed by their ex up to a year or two AFTER they've left ?

What I find MOST offensive, however, is not your (and others, like Antiseptic's) disregard of the cruelty that permeates our social fabric, but that you have had ample sympathy for your own experiences. I have not given less than due regard and sympathy for each of you, but NOT ONCE have either of you shown appropriate regard for the experience of women here, or of women who are injured or killed or who live in fear of ending up in either of those states.

Worst of all, you and Antiseptic and co. insist that YOU know womens experiences best - that YOU have the authority to define what their experience is or isn't.

I say to you - define your own experience. Call it what you will, but STOP adding to violence by minimizing and pooh-poohing what women experience.

It is NOT UP TO MEN to define and decide what constitutes the female experience of violence

Antiseptic:

"My ex got 7 months of unquestioned state support and activity simply for claiming "I feel threatened" with no evidence of what she felt the threat might be or even of any prior record of any kind of threatening behaviour from the victim."

Having no evidence, and no prior record of DV offences on your part, is not to say it didn't happen, is it.

As to your comments about funding and such, do you have any evidence for your claims? You might read and reflect on a library article by Morely and Macfarlane re: funding and policy under the Howard government. Surely it will comfort your fears that government might actually be concerned about protecting some of the most vulnerable amongst us.

Just an aside, apart from your offensive tampon comment on the first page, this:

<"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.
Posted by Antiseptic, Friday, 19 September 2008 10:14:00 AM">

This remark implies contempt for the "DV industry". If you don't recognize DV as a legitimate issue now; then you can hardly do so later, for ANYone (including males), can you.

... but keep posting. There are times when you are even amusing. :)

Pynchme:"Having no evidence, and no prior record of DV offences on your part, is not to say it didn't happen, is it. "

Congratulations! A perfect example of the kangaroo Court in action. Lynch mobs should form orderly lines to the left.

Pynchme:"This remark implies contempt for the "DV industry"

Well spotted.

Pynchme:"If you don't recognize DV as a legitimate issue "

But I do so recognise it. You want me to accept the proposition that DV is more worthy of recognition than violence in general, which is an entirely different kettle of fish that I do not want any part of.

<"But I do so recognise it. You want me to accept the proposition that DV is more worthy of recognition than violence in general, which is an entirely different kettle of fish that I do not want any part of.
Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 12 October 2008 3:16:47 PM">

- and so we return to my original perception of your view that the specific differences that distinguish DV from other types of community violence are irrelevant and the violent act should just be buried in the heap of generic community violence.

So, that would mean that R0bert has no case; you have no case - because if you have a case then, like any other case of violence - prove it.

By logical extension, you also must be in support of government chucking your claims and R0bert's on the general heap and basically doing what you both (inaccurately) claim is being done now - nothing.

Please post again - I could do with another laugh today.

Pynchme

You have just asked the one question I have been wanting to ask.

Why is there not a shred of empathy or at the very least sympathy for the female experience?

As you say, R0bert has received pages of support, links and understanding, yet when Romany wrote about her need for surgery as a result of DV, she gets called a "man-hater" - which amazingly she simply isn't.

Given that rates of female violence are lower than for men when women do behave violently or abusively it receives far more attention. Remember Bobbit? World wide news. But a woman having her genitals reconstructed after being sexually abused doesn't even make into the local paper.

Women's violence is seen as more sensational, rare, and unexpected than men's violence, as a result it is over reported or overemphasized in the news media. And men are well positioned to control how issues are addressed in popular culture: more men control the networks, the news media, and the decision-making about what goes on TV.

I find it deeply disturbing that there are people, like Antiseptic, who cannot see that there is an enormous difference between domestic violence and general violence in the community.

Where does a victim of violence go when the dangerous place is your own home? Can you not even sort of imagine what it is like when it is SAFER out on the streets, no matter what time of day, then at home?

As female posters have noted, these kind of threads generally turn into circular arguments for a number of men.

It still astounds me why the men on this forum who complain about their lack of victim status of violence do not confront male upon male violence. But then I suppose that does not fulfill their need to see themselves as justified to be mistrustful of women in general. And that is what it is really all about.

Just for you Romany,

' but after poring over literally hundreds of posts from Antiseptics, U.S's. etc posting history '

Fractelle:"Why is there not a shred of empathy or at the very least sympathy for the female experience"

How many times do you need to hear "Oh, you poor thing"?

Why do men who are not violent and never have been violent have to constantly justify themselves to you? Why can you not simply acknowledge that Romany's summing-up is reasonable and move on? Why do you feel your position is so weak that you need to misrepresent the posts of those who disagree with you?

Needless to say, these questions require some introspection on your part, so it's unlikely you'll do more than skim them and then repost the same crap you've been posting ad nauseum here. Seriously, Fractelle, you're better than that, but you're allowing yourself to be sidetracked by ninnies. Take it as read that noone condones any violence you may have experienced and move on.

Anansi:"I find it deeply disturbing that there are people, like Antiseptic, who cannot see that there is an enormous difference between domestic violence and general violence in the community."

The main difference as it has been put here is that domestic violence victims are often female, wheras the victims of violence outside the home are enormously more likely to be male. It seems that some here see violence directed at women as worse than violence directed at men, which was the point of the original post by R0bert. So far, the DV industry shills are doing their best to ignore that and confine the discussion to DV.

Anansi:"do not confront male upon male violence"

I refer you to my post made on Friday, 10 October 2008 9:16:21 AM. Also my post made on Thursday, 9 October 2008 11:31:01 AM. there are numerous others which you could have a look at, but beware, they may challenge your preconceptions.

Pynchme:"your view that the specific differences that distinguish DV from other types of community violence are irrelevant "

That's not my view at all. All I say is that if DV directed at women is worthy of special consideration, then all violence, which produces mostly male victims and in far greater numbers than DV should be at least as well supported.

One thing that you continue to try to ignore is that most men never, ever commit violence and most women never, ever experience it. Violent people are often violent regardless and bullies will bully as long as they think they can get away with it, whatever their gender.

So, off you go, play to the grrls, but do so in the full knowledge that you're as guilty of violence as I am for having shouted at my wife when she shouted at me. That makes you a hypocrite. Thanks for giving me the chance to clear that up.

Antiseptic: "How many times do you need to hear "Oh, you poor thing"? "

Apart from the fact I have yet to hear the above, the responses from you, U-Suss et al, has been to deny the import of DV on women and children, to claim that women commit as much violence as men and if that isn't enough to resort to personal insult and attack.

Therefore, any reader to these pages would gain the distinct impression that you do not care for anyone other than yourself.

I and many other female posters have offered positive contributions in the form of links and information regarding assistance to men who are undergoing spousal abuse.

You offer nothing to anyone that could be construed as helpful or understanding.

"It is NOT UP TO MEN to define and decide what constitutes the female experience of violence" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2153$47560

True, but equally true

"It is NOT UP TO WOMEN to define and decide what constitutes the male experience of violence"

Rather we should all pay attention to what those of the other gender are telling us about their experience.

I've described my own experiences of formal suppport known yet Pynchme continues to insist that support for men experiencing DV is just fine. No it's not. Perhaps so oblivious to the harm done by the focus on gender that you can't see the impact that gender focus will have on male victims seeking help, getting past the screening process, telling the truth when asked about how they sustained an injury etc.

The only "male" post I can recall on this thread which has dismissed violence against women was one by Steel early in the thread which I commented on at the time yet the males who are asking for public support against all violence are condemed for not having any empathy for female victims as if the only way to have empathy for female victims is to consider male victims as less important. A number of us have made it clear that we know that at the extreme end of the spectrum women outnumber men as victims. We've also made it clear that we would like campaigns working to stop all violence.

Too lessen the extreme end of the DV spectrum we need to reduce the lower level behaviours, the stuff that builds to become major harm. We need to get away from the idea that any level of violence within a spousal relationship is wrong regardless of who does it or how bothered by the other parties attitudes or actions they may be.

R0bert

As long as several people here continue to blame women for the retaliatory violence perpetrated by men in domestic violence situations (the "she made me do it" excuse), there can be no progression in this discussion. These few people don't understand, or care about, their "she made me do it" excuse. And with such writings, they have genderised the issues more, much more, than anyone else.

People often blame others for their own violence, and the courts are full of such people.

I'm very happy to clear that up for you, Robert and antiseptic/austin powerless.

Hi everyone,
I had to go away for a while and found a zillion email alerts in my inbox when I came back- so much to catch up on, thanks!

I have to make a choice about the argument I most wanted to respond to since I’ve been away and decided to single out Romany’s list of agreements because I’d be interested in discussing a little more about the verbal/psychological form of DV Romany included as part of the 5th point.

“5) there are actually two different forms of domestic violence and this difference needs to be brought to public attention.”

Before I could confidently bring it to public attention though, I feel it's a good idea if we could try to agree on some kind of definition or clear description of the non-physical form of DV.
I think that this would help me form a better opinion of it and perhaps a clear definition would prevent unnecessary arguments in future debates about DV.

It’s clear that physical abuse and sexual violence as well as verbal abuse are all a part of a system of abusive behaviour, but the former two terms are pretty clear and well understood, while it’s a bit harder to draw the line between, or to recognise the difference between domestic arguments and domestic violence.

I found a description on the site I linked to and wonder if you all agree with the differences outlined below or do you suggest alterations/additions?

http://www.infoxchange.net.au/wise/DVIM/DVDynamics.htm
a) Domestic Arguments
“…neither partner becomes an identifiable victim or abuser because neither party has more power or control than the other. This can be a healthy way to resolve differences…”

b) Domestic Violence
”… occurs in relationships where conflict is the continuous result of power inequality between the partners and one partner is afraid of, and harmed by the other…”
“…presents the primary tactics and behaviours individual abusers use to establish and maintain control in their relationships. “

R0bert:

Re: Pynch: "It is NOT UP TO MEN to define and decide what constitutes the female experience of violence" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2153$47560
(that link doesn't work - where was it to take us?)

R0b: True, but equally true

R0b: "It is NOT UP TO WOMEN to define and decide what constitutes the male experience of violence"

Pynch: Show an example of where I have done that.

R0b: Rather we should all pay attention to what those of the other gender are telling us about their experience.

Pynch: Yes we should. So when are you and Antiseptic going to start ?

- and to continue: I have never said that all services are just fine; or that men don't deserve to obtain services. Quite the opposite. Please stop telling lies about what I say or dramatizing for effect. However, you haven't acknowledged the existing avenues of support that I've mentioned, nor commented on action that you and other men could take.

Instead all we get is, "Wahh wahhhhh women get everything!" (when we don't; other than a lion's share of serious injuries.).

When women started supporting each other, they had NOTHING except the condemnation of people like you to motivate them.

What's wrong with you starting a support group?

There are some men's organizations and clusters - what are they doing to raise funds amongst themselves and/or from the private sector?

You are not going to get all that you want (and that some of you deserve as far as suffering at the hands of someone abusive) by denigrating the experience of or battling to reduce services for women.

Lastly - why start with the less serious incidents of DV? What exactly do you mean by that? What - I should turn away someone who turns up needing medical attention, in favour of some bloke whose missus has slapped him?

Try to outline your proposal please so that it can be understood and so that it represents a workable course of action. Thanks.

Pynchme:"Yes we should. So when are you and Antiseptic going to start ?"

Are you serious? Both R0bert and myself have told our experiences several times, which garnered little response other than vituperation from the women, at least as an initial reaction.

However, to recap, my experience is of being falsely accused of violence in the context of a custody court case. The result of the unsupported allegation was that I was prevented from seeing my children for over 7 months by the full force of the law. That was despite the DVLO who actually served me with the interim order volunteering that she could see no grounds for any allegation of actual violence. The only reason for the DVO application was to bolster the claim of my children's mother for greater custody and hence greater entitlement to both Govt support and to child support. In the end, she was unsuccessful in both endeavours.

Is that clear enough? Would you like me to reiterate it again in a couple of pages?

Pynchme:"battling to reduce services for women."

You simply can't help misrepresenting opposing arguments, can you? I guess when you've been part of the DV industry for a while it must become second nature. No one has even suggested "reducing services for women", but you consistently try to claim they have. Get over it and try to engage on the words, not your own stupid strawmen, please.

Celivia, with respect, the Duluth model is what the DV ndustry is trying to foist upon us here in Australia today and it stinks. The assumption is made that the man is always at fault and that the woman is a helpless and hapless victim under all circumstances. having seen the way in which the thinking that lies behind this model can be twisted to produce very bad outcomes, I am not a supporter.

However, the link did provide quite a good definition of argument as opposed to DV. I'd go so far as to say that the majority of so-called DV is actually argument as that link defines it.

The fact is that people do get angry and they do raise their voices and they sometimes even hit or throw things at walls with no threat to their spouse. The trouble with the Duluth model is that if a woman decides she is getting the worse end of the discussion or simply in order to gain some other advantage, she can simply claim to feel threatened and the man is automatically carted off and given a DVO, while she is given cossetted treatment and lots of sympathetic words. That creates a massive power imbalance and the incentive to use it, which is endlessly promoted by the DV industry.

If such a power is to be given, like all great power it must be tempered with responsibility. As it stands at present, there is no penalty for a woman making a false claim of DV and no way for the accused to get a speedy hearing, largely because of the spurious cases clogging the system, I suspect. Until a way of enforcing the responsibility of the accuser is found, I will continue to oppose the laws and the models they are based on.

Celivia, this is what the Duluth model leads to http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24489791-952,00.html

I quote:"VICTIMS of domestic violence who kill their abuser will be able to claim a defence against murder or manslaughter charges under new laws."

In other words, all a woman who wants to be excused of murder has to do is first get a DVO and she can get away with murder. Who then is the abuser? Is it the man who is now dead, or the woman who perpetrated the ultimate abuse and killed him?

The thinking behind this is entirely ideological, with little basis is logic. It's akin to me being able to "justify" burning someone's business down because they ripped me off financially. Sheer madness.

Antiseptic - I agree with you that such a system could indeed lead to abuse. But I think, perhaps, you are still equating all domestic violence with the slanging match/virago model which, we have all agreed, is no less violence and needs to be addressed. But that still leaves the question of what to do about the "other end" violence:

A friend of mine was approached by two people who volunteered to "take care" of her violent husband. Though terrified for her life she, of course, said no. Yet a couple of weeks later he made good on eight years of threats and killed her and then immediately did what she had feared all along - and tried to murder the kids as well.

Another friend - same story. Only in this case he killed her parents as well.

My own husband made it clear that any attempt to speak out would ensure the deaths of both my kids AND my parents: - he used to taunt me with the well-thought-out-plan of how he could get away with it, scott-free.

I'd always believed I could never take a life but I knew if it came to a choice between doing that and my kid's and/or parents'lives I would have to. Its a rock and a hard place for many, Antiseptic.

I managed to escape and get to Oz. But it took eight months and 3 continents, going into hiding, changing our identities, eluding private dectectives and cost me every penny I had in the world so that I ended up bringing up my kids in poverty so absolute we were once homeless. He, on the other hand got to keep the house, car, boat, furniture, clothes, ...and his good name.

So while I agree this new law is open to abuse, I can fully understand the him-or-my-kids scenario that causes some women to take this dreadful step. Then they lose their kids anyway while they serve a jail sentence and the children become wards of the State.

What IS the answer? I am sure I have no idea.

Antiseptic, which poster has negated your experience? Time and time again have posters suggested that it is important for men to relate their experiences.

Also, it is wrong to claim that a claim of DV would result in higher amount of money a custodial parent would get. That is simply not true.

Maintenance and/or government support is based on criteria which have nothing to do with any claims to violence. It is unfortunately used, by both parties, male and female, to bolster their claim for custody of children.

Robert actually ended up the primary carer of his children and as I related earlier, I know a man who had actually been carted off by the police and ended up being the primary carer of his son.

You are simply wrong by stating there is a 'DV industry'

Romany, thanks for sharing your experience. It's hard to comprehend what you have been through and it's clearly a whole different world to my experience.

I struggle to know what we should do about that type of behaviour. I do believe that if we reduce the acceptability of lower level violence it's less likely that people will move onto the extreme stuff but thats more about those who hit when they loose their temper not those who deliberately kill .

Were there any cultural or social factors which were significant in your situation? I know spousal violence occurs across the board but have the impression that it's more concentrated in some cultural/social groupings. The values that I assume drive such extreme behaviour are not something that I've ever heard expressed by men I've mixed with (although someone like that might keep it to themselves). Were there things about your ex and your friends husbands that would mark them out to others as holding such extreme attitudes?

R0bert

Robert,
Spousal violence occurs in the finest of millieus. Here in Australia that lovely understanding medical practioner could be beating his wife.

I know this personally for a fact.

It is a myth that it is certain already publicly violent persons from particular cultural backgrounds who beat and rape their spouses. Being publicly violent does not mean that this person also is violent to his nearest and dearest at home. Wife beaters can be fine upstanding citizens who would not dream of getting into fisticuffs outside the comfort of their home.

Family and friends often have no inkling, no idea.

Romany, what a brave woman you are! I shuddered reading your story. I’m so glad that your sons have become such balanced persons thanks to your support and care, that you’ve been able to provide a safe home for them and for yourself.

Antiseptic,
good to agree on the definitions.

You said (to Anansi),
“The main difference as it has been put here is that domestic violence victims are often female, whereas the victims of violence outside the home are enormously more likely to be male. It seems that some here see violence directed at women as worse than violence directed at men…”
No, you are using the wrong reasoning.
Nobody finds violence worse when it’s directed at women than when it’s directed at men.
The correct reasoning is that violence by an intimate partner in one’s own home is worse than violence happening randomly in the street or in pubs by strangers.
That women are attacked by their partners far more often and incur far more serious injuries is a fact.
As Anansi said, the ones who suffer the worst consequences of domestic violence are naturally getting more attention.

Men who are attacked in their own home by their partner should make sure they get the same recognition but not by criticising what women have achieved. Women never got what they achieved handed to them on a silver plate; they fought for the right to be heard.
Pynchme (I think it was her) said men should get organised, tell your stories not only on OLO but also to the world! Learn from women rather than criticising them.
Ask for help if you need it.
Here in this thread and others about DV, women have been very sympathetic to the experiences of men who were victims of DV, and helpful too; there is no reason to believe that women will be less sympathetic elsewhere.

”The fact is that people do get angry and they do raise their voices and they sometimes even hit or throw things at walls with no threat to their spouse.”

Continued

I accept that some people need to raise their voice when angry or frustrated although the only place I’ve ever shouted since I was a terrible-two is on OLO J
However, I find throwing things and punching walls unacceptable, and see it as aggressive behaviour, which I find threatening.

While I’ve never been physically attacked by a partner, twice, complete strangers attacked me.
The first time a punch in the face by a drunk (for not wanting to sit on his lap!), which caused a cracked tooth and other injuries, which I had to have repaired.
The second time an attempted rape by someone who had followed me home.

I was lucky to be able to defend myself with a broken glass vase that had fallen over in the struggle and which I managed to stab in his face.
These incidents made me neither anxious about going out nor about being home alone, nor did it make me paranoid about being followed.

However, I had a boyfriend and once when we argued he picked up a glass and smashed it against the wall.
I never wanted to see him again.

I felt more threatened by the glass-throwing boyfriend who didn’t hurt me than by the strangers who did. Throwing things is NOT acceptable behaviour in my books and I find it a sign that someone can’t control anger. He said he’d never do it again when he saw I was upset but how could I be sure that he’d never throw things again? And how would I know that once married, he wouldn’t throw things at ME instead of at the wall?
I would’ve never, ever been able to feel safe around this guy even though he hadn’t physically hurt me. Once a guy can’t control his anger a woman can never be sure he won’t harm her.

Why is it that some people feel that it’s ok to throw things or punch holes in walls, that this wouldn’t it be felt as threatening behaviour?
I find it VERY threatening when coming from someone who’s physically stronger than I am.

Anansi "Robert actually ended up the primary carer of his children" - no thanks to the gender biased family law system who could not understand why I did not submit to my ex's demands regarding significant changes to child residency.

I was eventually forced into letting her do it her way because of the harm done to us all by the ongoing dispute and picked up the pieces later. Once I'd agreed to the changes I worked hard to try and make them work. I have prime care because my ex could not cope with it, my preference was and is for shared care.

"Spousal violence occurs in the finest of millieus." - I acknowledged that in my post but that does not mean that it's not more concentrated in some groups than others. That's clearly the case with every other form of violence including child abuse.

I'd rather not go on to justify my ponderings on this at the moment, I started and became concerned at what impact that discussion mught have on Romany. I don't know the best way of handling those discussions on a forum like this where someone I value has been through such horror.

If you do want to see some discussion on the topic section 1.2.2 of http://eprints.utas.edu.au/1045/2/Bradfield_ch1.pdf touches on it.

R0bert

Robert - No, there is nothing that marks the violent spouse - had there been I - and my friends - would have run a mile rather than marry. In fact my husband was polite, softly spoken, and loved to tell jokes. I often got told how lucky I was to be married to such a lovely man. He was a scratch golf player and had loads and loads of golfing partners and club-mates - not one of whom believed his violent nature and who rallied round after his wife-from-hell ran out on him and deprived him of his beloved children.

My husband simply hated women. All women. And I was the scapegoat for every woman who ever behaved badly in the whole world. Until I married him I never even knew such people existed. But years of talking to other women in hospitals, and both patients and shrinks in psychiatric wards showed that he was not unique.

It also explained clearly why rape has been used as a tool of war for centuries: - its another way of excercising power over the enemy. Until I married him I had never known that sex was the most common way a certain type of man can attempt to destroy a woman's very core of being. (Mind you, that was knowledge one can happily go through a life-time without knowing, I guess!)

The thing is, just as you didn't know, until you came up against it, that women could be violent, most of us don't know with what fear and degradation some women live daily. That's why its so important that we all tell our stories. Men and women. It's no easier for either sex to speak up about, but it HAS to be talked about.

Romany, thanks for the reply. We do never know what it's like in someone elses skin.

R0bert

R0bert

I hope that the detail Romany has gone through has had some impact on you and others. She has just taken herself on a painful journey through the past for you and others who question the reality of extreme domestic violence. Her testimony is a gift to all of us.

I don't dare give too many details about my own experience, I was stalked from some years after escaping and don't wish take any risks.

As for DV being confined to a particular demographic, I know and as Celivia, Romany and Ansansi have stated, it happens across the strata of society. There was no indication of the potential for violence in my ex-husband. Otherwise I wouldn't have married him.

As for throwing objects and punching holes in walls - this is not the behaviour of a mature adult and can lead on to more violence. Nor is standing over someone and screaming in their face acceptable. I experienced this behaviour in another relationship (after my escape from my husband). And he was wonderful in every other way. However, I ended the relationship immediately. Anyone who cannot channel their anger, either by removing themselves to 'cool-off' really needs assistance or they could end up hurting those they claim to love.

Anger is fine, we all get angry, it is how we manage it that is vital.

Romany:"Its a rock and a hard place for many"

I don't deny it, but encouraging people to treat minor violence as equivalent to the serious DV you experienced is not going to lead to equitable outcomes. One of the biggest problems is that in a DV situation, each is inevitably going to blame the other, probably with some justification in most cases. That being the case, surely a message that women are safe from retaliation if they stir up trouble is only going to make those who are wont to do that feel more inclined to do so? Ditto, if a man feels he's got no chance of a fair go, he may well feel he's got nothing to lose by escalating the violence?

Anansi:"Maintenance and/or government support is based on criteria which have nothing to do with any claims to violence. It is unfortunately used, by both parties, male and female, to bolster their claim for custody of children."

The point was that the claim of violence was made in the context of a custody claim. The increased custody would have given her greater access to Govt funding and CS. Spousal maintenance is not relevant in today's FL environment and hasn't been for years, as much as the single mother's groups would like it to be.

Anansi:"You are simply wrong by stating there is a 'DV industry'"

There are considerable numbers of people, mostly women, who derive their income principally or entirely from being involved in various businesses and other organisations that have DV as their principal raison d'etre. that constitutes an industry, no less than the people who derive their income from forestry constitute a timber industry. The DV inductry has been equally as aggressive and as careless with the truth as the timber industry in promoting its interests. The victims are a means to a selfish end, just like old-growth forest.

Celivia:"Nobody finds violence worse when it’s directed at women than when it’s directed at men."

The advertisements, the White Ribbon campaign, the PM's statement all state that women must be immune from violence, but make no mention of men at all. They also make little mention of DV, in particular the PM said "violence against women is not acceptable under any circumstances". The semiotics are clear.

Celivia:"there is no reason to believe that women will be less sympathetic elsewhere. "

Have you read the comments posted to newspapers? Inevitably, if a man tells his story he is swamped with a tide of women telling him he's a whinger or to get over it or simply "be a man". There is little sympathy for male victims and that situation will only get worse with the Duluth model implemented IMO.

Celivia:"Learn from women rather than criticising them. "

I don't criticise women for this, I criticise the DV industry and the politicians who are pandering to them without considering the consequences. I have nothing but sympathy for women who have experienced a violent partner.

Celivia and Fractelle, my mention of the throwing of things was because I have had 3 separate partners who all threw something at some time. I have never done so, nor have I punched walls. One of those partners I mention broke her hand when she tried to backhand me and I dodged, while the doorframe didn't. Nonetheless, I still regard an explosive release of tension as no exemplar of violence, unless it is directed at a person or ntended to create fear. young men, especially those with poor educational attainment are quite prone to these releases of frustration and often that breaks the tension enough for reason to take over.

With respect to both Romany and Fractelle, no one disputes serious violence needs serious intervention, but the response today is out of proportion to the seriousness at the lower end of the scale. That means it is bad law.

Antiseptic,

Not being deliberately argumentative here but : - while not reading every newspaper comment on male-directed DV, the link to which someone posted on these threads did indeed contain “Be a man”-type statements – but those came predominantly(which, though a qualifier, is not an absolute) from other males. And the blokes I have been in contact with who went through it confirmed that most condemnation they had was from work-mates. Admittedly both were from lower socio-economic backgrounds – which surely highlights the fact that it’s essential these stories be broadcast more?

Yes, I agree its tough. Inevitably one gets ridiculed or blamed. The reason many women remain silent is that we also get castigated: the most common reaction is that a) we must have done something to provoke it (and so we are bad) b) we are exaggerating or lying(and so we are bad) c) we probably secretly enjoy it till it gets out of hand (and so we are bad) and d) we should have been able to prevent it…so we must be bad. Just like men, this is not confined to the general public - we still get these reactions from those who should know better like cops and doctors .

Just as still happens in cases where the violence performed is rape, ANY victim of violence still has to battle old preconceptions. I honestly don’t know what more I can say to convince you of this truism if my own experiences and those of other women don’t help you see that.

And yes, yes, yes. I thought we had established that we are talking about different kinds of violence. So how do we combat it: on two fronts?

I agreed with you that this law was indeed open to abuse. My post about my own experiences and my friends' deaths was an effort to show the circumstances in which such a law could be seen to be justified You still do not agree that it has any justification and is a bad law. So I once again pose the question: what is the answer?

Fratelle "who question the reality of extreme domestic violence"

I don't question the reality of extreme DV, rather how common it is and the way that end of the spectrum is used to justify the entire DV focus being about male violence against women.

"I know and as Celivia, Romany and Ansansi have stated, it happens across the strata of society." as have I "I know spousal violence occurs across the board "

I have not claimed that DV is confined to a particular demographic, rather that it's more common in some groups - impacting on both perpetrators and victims. Indiginous people are by my understanding about 1 1/2 times more likely to be killed by an intimate partner. Filipino women living in Australia are six times more likely than other women to be killed by an intimate partner.

Have a read of the section of the paper I referenced yesterday.

I found a pointed example of the situation that Antiseptic and I are describing yesterday http://www.domesticviolence.com.au/

"However, in a relationship where domestic and family violence is occuring the situation is very different. One person in the relationship uses abuse and or violence to control the other person through fear. The victim feels threatened, too frightened to argue back, or too scared to disagree or express their opinion. The perpetrator has power over the victim. In the majority of cases of domestic and family violence the victims are female."

"23% of Australian women who have ever been married or in a de-facto relationship experienced violence by a partner at some time during the relationship. (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1996)"

Do you really believe that 23% of Australian women have had a partner using the form of violence described earlier? Not the two people had an argument and one or both lost their temper kind but the male was trying to dominate the other through fear kind. If thats not what they are saying then why don't they ask how many men have experienced violence from a partner?

R0bert

Romany, your story illustrates why I sometimes feel like crying on threads like these.

I've looked after enough women like you. In Intensive Care Units. If only it were easy to 'identify' the type of man, who do these kind of things to their partners.

Antiseptic, I do get your point about your frustration that seemingly inoccuous behaviour is seen as full-scale DV. The problem is that seemingly inoccuous behaviour can slowly escalate, sometimes imperceptibly until there is full scale assault. Unfortunately, women do need to learn to be alert to this. Celivia was, but many are not.

Romany:"how do we combat it: on two fronts?"

We give the public credit for being intelligent enough to be able to understand a message that is more complex. Anybody who's been in a healthy relationship knows that arguments happen mutually. If one partner doesn't want to argue, the other soon calms down usually. Giving a message that men are always at fault is at odds with their experience. That makes it less credible to those it's meant to be influencing to modify their behaviour, ISTM.

I'd like to see a more nuanced approach, perhaps including advertisements depicting non-violent behaviours escalating over time into violence. A series run over a few months showing a couple in a deteriorating relationship? Perhaps a counter series of the same couple in a healthy relationship, showing what they do differently to achieve the better outcome. Show why the outcome is better for everyone.

Make it about choices not coercion, and make it a mutual responsibility, not an imposition on one party.

If people learn to bend a little, there is no problem except with the truly sociopathic.

Robert
I accessed the site whose URL you provided and I agree with all you've said: DV is presented there as solely the prerogative of men. I would, in your position, be justly angry about the exclusive use of the genderised personal pronoun throughout.

But, honestly, I feel that this instance and others like it present a great opportunity for you and others to get pro-active. Only by contacting such sites, contributing your stories, putting your case, will you be able to bring about change. We women on this thread empathise with your frustrations, but it is the public at large and organisations you need to be directing much of your frustration at, not us.

I know that some men believe there is an exclusive organisation existing that will marginalise male victims if they attempt to raise consciousness. To prove this is not so keep searching out sites and organisations and tackle them - objectively and rationally - about this percieved bias. It took women years to get recognition and it might take a while for your efforts to be seen to have any impact. But changes won't happen unless people are prepared to be instrumental in change.

Anansi, Celivia, Fracetelle etc.
I want to say thank you for your expressions of concern. But I also want to make it clear that I am NOT a brave person as someone suggested. I am one of the biggest wimps out. However niether have I ever, ever, considered myself a victim. I'm a survivor. And the only reason I ever talk about my experiences is in the hope that someone, somewhere might feel trapped in similar circumstances and, if they see that a pacifist, wimpy, ordinary person like me can survive then so can they

(perhaps because of where I'm writing from my last post seems to have been written AFTER yours. It wasn't.)

I really think that the proposal you put forward was great. Not only does it highlight the problem, but provides for solutions. I just hope that some of those letters you write are to relevant groups and organisations etc. putting forward this eminently feasible idea, yeah?

If Colonel Blimp and DB can meet up off-line to rubbish other OLO contributers, maybe you and Robert should make contact off-OLO and see if the two of you could work better together on addressing this question that you can seperately?

However, if a person is unlucky enough to be teamed up with one of the "sociopath"-type partners, the message that all their problems can be solved through meaningful dialogue or whatever means one envisages showcasing, might make them even more reluctant to come forward as they would take their failure to effect change as their own fault, perhaps?

Romany, I might e pre-judging them too harshly (or being defeatist) but past experience with trying to discuss these issues with people in the industry tells me I don't need the hurt. Those I have spoken to are so tied up in the paradime of DV being a male thing that you don't get listened to, more likely it will be assumed that you are an abuser.

I've focussed my efforts here because I get a chance to put my case, because many of those I deal with here are more intellectually honest so there is a chance that a well put case will get a hearing, because of those who read but don't write who might take away some understanding of the other side of the issue. It also helps that I can maintain anonimity here.

Early on I tried writing to pollies and other stuff and discovered that their lack of interest (away from election times) is something I'd rather not get too many reminders of. I've talked to enough people involved in the industry to be convinced that they are not the ones to be talking to.

I'd rather talk to people such as yourself, Celivia and Fractelle who have seen the otherside but are still willing to be fair, who try to understand and who will if the evidence is convincing be willing to change viewpoints.

R0bert

Antiseptic, your suggestion would actually be an excellent advertising campaign.

I would say that a series of advertising like that would actually make people wait for the next 'episode' so the speak. Wouldn't it make for some great conversation out on the street/work and at home? I suggest that more people would be able to come forward and examine their own experiences. Good and bad.

Give your idea to an advertising company and make sure you get a percentage of the earnings!!

Robert, to get any change you have to keep on chip, chipping. It is like erosion: constant, but eventually even rocks get worn down.

Anansi, if you want to cut a diamond you have to cut it at the right place :) . I've played a bit with stone carving and I intend to do more. Chipping at the hardest spots blunts the tools and may damage the rest of the stone.

I'd rather put my efforts where they have some chance of success, talking to the millitants in the DV industry is a bit like trying to convince our most intractible anti-feminist that feminisms not as he imagines it to be.

I'd like it so that when people see a definition of DV that describes a small proportion of spousal violence and then see that followed up by a statistic about the number of women who experience violence from a spousal partner they will ask "Are they describing the same thing and if not why are they trying to link the two?" or "if they are telling me about that why are they not telling me how many men or how many children experience similar violence?".

I'd like it if when we see an article that is completely genderised we ask why and would the message loose anything valuable if it was not completely genderised? I think many have gotten so used to the generised message that they no longer ask those questions, we don't stop and ask outselves how we would feel if the same treatment was given to another group.

I'll be pleased when people hear a genderised speech, see a genderised add or read a genderised webpage and ask themselves if they are seeing a genuine attempt to reduce all violence or rather a shot in someones cherished gender war.

R0bert

R0bert: "talking to the millitants in the DV industry"

You can never change the mind of the militant. You are targeting the wrong people, they (your militants) see many people who ARE difficult and who ARE pursuing vendettas. Gets hard to see the forest for the trees sometimes.

Persistence pays, target your local MP's (and other high ranking citizens), always remain polite, put everything in writing. This is advice I have followed myself and given to people who approached me about about government policies I couldn't change when I was a public servant. Many people in pressured jobs such as family services, policing, immigration etc, resort to a hard line in order to both protect themselves and to take the easy way out as in never admitting to being wrong - they are drones just doing a job and trying not to burn out. I did burn out, but I also managed to help a few people. My choice, no regrets: that's often the way it is in stressful jobs.

Have a standard template letter, and simply update it every couple of weeks, as in "I haven't heard back", or "thought I'd ensure you had received my last letter"; believe me the squeaky wheel does eventually get oiled. How do you think women managed to get the vote? Not by giving up the first time someone told us to go home and look after our husbands.

Romany, Anansi, Celivia and others thank you for giving me the strength to keep contributing here - your frank honesty is inspirational to all who read these pages.