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.