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