I truly don't know why this subject seems only to result in "bigotry".

This is where women speak against violence against them in an unbalanced way and where men seem to respond in kind.

Both sides are guilty.

The simple facts of the matter are that when one PERSON attacks another, irrespective of gender, the attacked person has a legal right to defend themselves with reasonable force.

I am stunned by the seeming intransigence of various posters who seem to want to PIN the issue of violence on one side or the other.

Some women are dangerously violent.
Some men are dangerously violent.

ALL violence of that nature is bad.

If statistics prove that it seems to prevail more with men.. than that is a fact.. it doesn't negate the right of a man to lawfully defend himself... why even argue against this?

The arbiter is THE LAW..not subjective opinion.

Even if statistics show that most DV is perpetrated by men... it does not, repeat NOT imply that men should not defend themselves with reasonable force, preferably restraint, but if a woman has a knife in her hand and is coming at him..them I'm sorry but kicks, punches and even a chunk of 2x4, a baseball bat, a golf club is absolutely legitimate and lawful.

Can anyone deny this? no ? good..now stop arguing please.

Then..perhaps take the next step of seeking to develop personal strategies for anger management and trigger avoidance.

My preferred strategy would be to recognize that new life in Christ will transform a person.

Bloody 'ell.

1. Thank you Forrest, while I don’t always agree with you at least we keep the doors of communication open. Cheers.

2. Antiseptic, I asked you what you wanted, I didn't ask to be attacked (again). You claim: "I do focus on the discussion." Really? Then why didn't you answer my question instead of yet again referring to women as "collective hen peckers"? If you've forgotten, it was the same question I asked R0bert.

3. UsualSuspect:
"I really believe Fractelle is hurt by all this, but the effect of her comments is to perpetuate the conflict."

Yes I am hurt, deeply, therefore I should be silent?

3. R0bert, you claimed to be irate when I stated there are those who seek to silence the female voice, please refer to above comment from U-Suspect.


4. Pynchme: "... if men are really concerned about male victims of violence, why isn't there at least as much of a concerted effort to address the victimization of men (and boys) by other men. Why is male on male violence a non-issue for you all when it constitutes most of the violence that occurs?"

I'd really like an answer to that one as well.

Celivia and R0bert have shown many times that DV is not only a male on female crime, (according to ABS), 30% is female attacking male. All of us has stated that violence is wrong. Some of us believe that violence in the home is less reprehensible than that outside the home. Many of us disagree with that.

It is that word 'disagree' which causes the problems; brings on the sexual stereotyping insults. I NEVER wanted to get this involved with this argument. This topic is too close to the bone for me and I know bullying when I see it - I am not a fool. I know that the facts and research and references I and others have supplied have been completely ignored by those who are clearly affronted that a woman dares to speak out.

Perhaps we need a new topic: “When a woman dares to speak?"

Pynchme:"Why is male on male violence a non-issue for you all when it constitutes most of the violence that occurs?"

Go and read the numerous posts in which I have stated that serious violence is most frequently perpetrated by men. In some of them I've made the point that the same offenders often feature in violence directed at people of both genders. I have also said several times that violence against males affects significantly more victims than violence against women, with almost no response, yet you now introduce it as though it had never been mentioned.

If you expect me to put any effort into treating what you say with respect, then do me the courtesy of behaving the same way, please.

Pynchme says:

"I'm puzzled by some quote and the apparent removal of a post. How does one delete a post ? I didn't think that was possible. Is there some button here that I can't see ?"

Good. Its not just me. Whilst I will be the first to admit that I might miss noticing what to others may be an obvious feature of the Forum, I don't believe a user can delete a post. I believe a user may request OLO that a post be removed, but that can only be done by the moderator, and presumably then only if removal was warranted in terms of OLO policies and Forum rules.

I once indicated that a post I had absent-mindedly made as a relative non-sequitur in a thread could be removed if OLO wanted. No subsequent argument at that point had been made in the thread. That post remains up to this day.

The ability of a user to remove a post unilaterally would be akin to allowing the censoring or alteration of Hansard, upon which subject my views are on record elsewhere. I doubt it is ever allowed.

Antiseptic, in relation to this claimed post deletion, says:

"Rubbish. The post was removed because I quoted from it. It thus became an embarrassing piece of evidence that JW/SallyG wanted removed. If GrahamY and Bronwyn had not quoted from it in the original thread, her attempted deception would have worked. You do owe me an apology, because you jumped in feet-first to support someone who claimed that I made up the quote, assuming me to be dishonest. I am not."

I jumped in feet-first in support of checking facts. I checked the claims of someone who had claimed to have checked relevant facts. My check supported their (SallyG's) claim. If what you claim above is both possible and correct, I can understand your being upset. In that circumstance your beef is with OLO rules and moderation policy, not with me.

I made no assumptions. Just checked claims and facts.

Fractelle,

OT. Linux?

Fractelle,

' therefore I should be silent?'. What I'm saying is to bring up past grievences at the start of every new topic has the effect of continuing the conflict from other topics. Still taking my comments out of context and twisting them around to play the victim I see.

'It is that word 'disagree' which causes the problems'
Yes it is, when you continually equate it with bullying. You reserve the right to disagree, but if a male disagrees with you he is a bully trying to silence you.

Why is it yourself and pynchme can feel ‘silenced’ and ‘bullied’, but when antiseptic feels ‘hen-pecked’, that in itself is considered an attack?

pynchme,

‘pretend that women are not experiencing DV ?'

'For some reason women must be silenced'

'tell everyone to shut up'

‘swept under the carpet again'

' hide the effects'

'bury the effects for the majority '

'trying to shut women up'

'Ignoring or minimizing the fact of violence against women '

'denying women's experiences '

'minimize violence against women'

I got bored in the end there were so many, I deleted 10 more for room. Most of these quotes are in response to people wanting just some representation of female on male violence in the DV campaign.

'However, I will argue in opposition to Antiseptic's claim that there is no qualitative difference between different types of violence.'

So would I. But I have constantly stated I don't want all violence to be the focus, just all domestic violence, which is what the campaign is about. Your reply to me... 'Yes indeed you are trying to hide the effects' of domestic violence against women.

'Why is male on male violence a non-issue '
As I have said, it's widely recognised, not hidden like DV. My focus is purely on DV, and a truthful portrayal of domestic disputes that doesn’t exclusively focus on males being sole aggressors, and put men who yell in the same category as men who beat someones head in. And I’m not looking for parity, just an honest holistic approach, whatever the percentages.

Forrest Gump, I removed the quote. It did exist.