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.