Pynchme, "rather than trying to counter violence against men by seeking to establish parity with the victimization of females which, in my opinion, is unproductive and inaccurate. In fact, I can't see any reason why some groups try to do that."

My opening post on this thread contained the following statement "The second point is why does this still need to be a gender issue? Why can't he speak against violence against anybody - women, men and children? Why no mention of the proportion of men mentioned in ABS stats who are assaulted both by other men and by females? Why no statement about assaults on children by carers or as a result of schoolyard violence?" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2153#45649

I also said "Regardless of what we think about the relative rates of violence each group suffers from or how much harm is done we should be able to agree that if the standard is zero tollerance then that fits across the board. It does not need gender or age qualifications."

I stated my preference for keeping the dabate away from the numbers "I'm trying to keep this discussion away from the relative proportions of DV perpetrated by both genders, thats a whole other discussion but if you are in the least interested in some serious studies on that I'll provide some links to material." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2153#45827

Apart from the debate over the truth of the claim the approach taken by those supporting a genderised campaign is a significant factor.

"Do a body count.

Reflect on how many men are killed by women,
and how many women are killed by men." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2153#45725
You want to make it about numbers and then can't understand when we give numbers.

On the opening page Sofisu tried to imply that those of us opposed to a genderised campaign are probably abusers "When will men stand up with Mr Rudd on this issue without trying to defend what well may be their own actions.?" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2153#45698

Other than Usual Suspect nobody challenged that particularly vile suggestion. It's not as clear cut as some try and make out.

R0bert

Forrest Gumpp:"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I have no beef with OLO's moderation policy if it permits someone to request their post be withdrawn. I can envisage all sorts of reasons for doing so, some trivial and some not. I do, however, have a beef with someone jumping in with their size 11s offering congratulatory messages to someone who made scurrilous accusations about me in the full knowledge that the post she was referring to had been deleted. i have a beef with you because you have still not acknowledged that you did so. i told you what had actually happened, offering the evidence of other posts referring to the deleted one and you still referred to my statement as a "claim", which you never did in your original post to SallyG.

As the old saying goes, "better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it and remove all doubt". Good advice for some, I think...

Forrest

Been rather too busy to deal with linux/abuntu transfer ATM, but thanks for the inquiry.

Usual Suspect - I have provided a great deal of information regarding the rates of DV between men and women - that you choose to ignore them is not my problem just a very selective interpretation of my posts on your part.

R0bert, apparently it is acceptable for you to speak out on your past experiences but not for me, U-Suspect: "What I'm saying is to bring up past grievences (sic) at the start of every new topic has the effect of continuing the conflict from other topics."

Double standard? Absolutely. BTW I did enter this discussion at the start, but after tiring of the personal insults directed towards Romany, Pynchme et al.

Anti- 'I respond in kind' -septic:

No doubt life is very difficult finding offense as you do in the slightest disagreement if uttered by a woman.

Finally, a quote:

"Make no mistake about it: Women want a men's movement. We are literally dying for it. If you doubt that, just listen to women's desperate testimonies of hope that the men in our lives will become more nurturing toward children, more able to talk about emotions, less hooked on a spectrum of control that extends from not listening through to violence, and less repressive of their own human qualities that are called 'feminine' - and thus suppressed by cultures in which men dominate...

In short the question we must ask - and both men and women must keep asking -is not why women can't escape male violence, but why men do it. Is the men's movement uprooting the politics of patriarchy, or just giving it a new face?"

(Steinam, 1992: v-vii)

Fractelle:"No doubt life is very difficult finding offense as you do in the slightest disagreement if uttered by a woman."

Not at all. This forum is a place in which we are all equal. I treat posters as people, regardless of gender. Why do you expect me to give you special dispensation to be exempt from my comments if I disagree with you? What's special about you?

Fractelle:"In short the question we must ask - and both men and women must keep asking -is not why women can't escape male violence, but why men do it. Is the men's movement uprooting the politics of patriarchy, or just giving it a new face?""

As I have said several times, and you continue to ignore, most violence is perpetrated by a small number of people. Often the same people are responsible for violence toward others of both genders. Most men never commit violence, against a woman or anyone else. If the majority of men are not violent, why do many repeat offenders manage to have multiple relationships? Why do some victims seem to manage to find multiple abusers?The fact is that some women are attracted to men who have a propensity for violent dominance, just as some men seem to have a need to be under the "ownership" of a dominant, controlling woman.

However, most women are neither of those things and that suits most men.

Some women abuse the genuine victims by using false allegations for Family Court advantage, which is where I got my interest in the topic.

Fractelle,

' I have provided a great deal of information regarding the rates of DV between men and women '

What's that got to do with anything. . The game of my stats and studies are better than yours that robert and SJF normally play bores me to tears.

I'm still not sure you understand what I was saying about past grievences (sic). I am talking about grievences (sic) with other posters, not with your grievences (sic) to do with DV you have experienced. You have entered the last few gender topics full of this 'certain posters are bullies, I wont be silenced, level of vitriol comparable to violence' vicim speak.

You talk about bullying from the male posters, but on this topic it's the female posters trawling through 100s of posts from topics long gone in an attempt to assasinate the character and discredit male posters, rather than debating the topic. JW, SallyG tried this agsinst anti, Romany added her own very nasty distortion of one of my comments ages ago, which I remember clarifing at the time. You have also admitted twice in the past you were baiting me and pushing my buttons.

Why cant you see these things go both ways, and that your 'bullying' is identical to anti's 'henpecking'?

' if uttered by a woman'
That's just rubbish. I think anti is equally vigilant in firing and returning fire to male and female posters alike.

Lets face it, even you know what's going on with your constant cries of bullying.
'Living with my ex-husband was like walking on eggshells'. But anti and myself are not you husband. If we disagree with you it's not abuse. You have just as much power, probably more as you have more support for your arguments from OLO posters, as we have. The whole bully and silencing thing exists inside you.

Next topic, try and not jump in with the first post claiming to be a perpetual victim of all the male posters that disagree with you.

Antiseptic & U.Suss,
I specifically stated on another thread that I was not interested in responding to you two. I realise now that being ignored can be hurtful and in fact engender as much bad feeling as outright hostility.

So: - The reason I don't like engaging with either of you is illustrated in the last few pages of this thread. While I am not for one moment accusing the two of you of being wholly responsible, it is true that so many threads degenerate into scrapping with you two. I don't shrink from a good debate or exchange of views but pointless repetition with no chance of anyone breaking through to the other I consider to be a waste of my time.

Even as I write the foregoing I envisage bristling comments concerning what makes my time more important than anyone elses ...and so on. But the fact is that I do work in a very time-consuming area and am daily confronting the real-life needs and problems of hundreds of young men and women - and am available to them 24/7 - so, at the risk of providing ammunition for posts to come, I merely state my no frills reason.

U. Suss's comments regarding my "If I could have king-hit him, of course I would" definitively illuminated the fact that he doesn't realise that my apples are his oranges, while Antiseptics nomenclature in labelling me a "man-hater" proved he either has never read anything I've written or that he chooses to believe I am untruthful in all I write. When in fact, he called me a liar on a previous thread - probably the most insulting and serious charge a person can level at another, I realised further interaction would be counter productive.

If I appeared to snipe and scuttle: I consider that Robert and I reached an acceptable level of concession and further discussion was unnecessary. As well I am often away and/or pressure of work precludes contributing.