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