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