Antiseptic - thank you for your your apology: while you may not remember having said it, it confounded, gobsmacked and hurt me greatly so I appreciate your having taken the time to rescind it.

You asked why I thought it was that threads involving you and U.Suss degenerated into scraps? I'm unsure if that was a rhetorical question or not and I cannot speak for others. However, from my POV the answer is probably contained further in your post where you state that you use strong language because it invokes strong answers. I respond much better to objective language and reasonable debates, myself.

U. Suss, as you are leaving for good yet again it is perhaps pointless to respond. However, you leave, this time, with the question forever unanswered as to where and when, exactly, I made the "admission" to having gone through hundreds of posts in order to make a point?

Pynchme, in part that last post was a response to you not knowing why mens groups "seek parity" on DV.

I was pointing out that one of the reasons the numbers became a factor in this thread was because of your insistance that we look at the body count. It seems the approach from yourself and others that support the status quo is that men should get nothing in the way of public support as victims of DV because of a particular set of numbers.

My opening post asked why all violence was not included in the PM's statement including violence by men against men yet you have claimed that men wanting the issue of violence by women against men don't care about that one.

At the straight body count (body count being corpses and serious injuries) level amongst adults family violence is genderised, if you insist on defining controlling behaviours by strength along then DV is probably genderised.

We try and point out that other than where physical strength is the predominate factor family violence is not significantly genderised because it's the truth and because it seems the only way that some would consider having the message being against all violence.

The focus on genderisation in family violence is not about having women heard. It's been used to prop up a sense of victimisation, to encourcage women feel superior to men and to give women and unfair advantage in family breakdown. It's been used at the expense of women, men and children perpetuating family violence rather than working to stop it all.

I think it was Romany who made a great post earlier about the need for safety in the home and why there is a difference to violence outside the home. That same message impacts on why sometimes we might speak more about violence against men in the home than out. It seems more achievable to alter beliefs about violence in the home than outside.

R0bert

Pynchme:"passive aggressive, that is just a sneaky way of blaming the victim (as usual)."

Passive aggression is classically exemplified by the aggressor seeking to use indirect means to attack the victim, whilst standing by "helplessly" claiming it is someone else's fault. In some cases, such as my own, the aggressor makes false allegations of misconduct against the victim, in order to elicit a response from the State. My ex got 7 months of unquestioned state support and activity simply for claiming "I feel threatened" with no evidence of what she felt the threat might be or even of any prior record of any kind of threatening behaviour from the victim.

You might say that's an example of the system working as it should, but I say it's yet another example of the ways in which this whole subject has been manipulated by some unscrupulous people for their own ends. Some of them produce self-serving "research" that never seems to do anything but lead to the need for more funding for more "research" Others create "organisations" that have no organising principle other than providing the founder with a means of obtaining funding or boosting their political credentials. Still others, like my ex, are simply coattail riders, using the system to passively-aggressively assault their former partners.

Frankly, the poor buggers who are victims of violence are only of interest to many of these people as a mealticket or a way to satisfy their own passive-aggressive drives.

Where do you fit in to that spectrum?

Romany:"I respond much better to objective language and reasonable debates, myself."

Nice thought, but I've found here that reasoned argument is usually ignored by those with an axe to grind. Look at the number of times I've had to repeat the simple statement that I understand most serious violence perpetrators are male, all because my interlocutors respond emotionally to the rest of my conclusion, which is that male victims of violence are worthy of the same consideration as female victims. Some of the dopier contributors here seem to take that as meaning that I somehow condone violence against women.

Given that my words will be misconstrued by the dimwitted anyway and given that the sensible ones are likely to applaud tham for their "strong support of women" or some such idiocy, I figure I may as well not bother refraining from strong language in the first place. It also has the advantage of drawing strong responses from those who may otherwise be on the fence.

Now that it seems that we have calmed down a little could we perhaps re-cap?: -

No matter what the language/jibes/acrimony etc. used, it seems that all of us here are in agreement on some points viz:-

1) women and men are capable of domestic violence
2) men inflict the heavier casualties on both genders
3) domestic violence campaigns thus far present all domestic violence as being perpetuated by men
4) we carry emotional baggage - and some of us physical baggage in the form of scars etc.
5) there are actually two different forms of domestic violence and this difference needs to be brought to public attention.

Perhaps in future those of us who have taken part in this particular thread could remember that we all agree at least on these points? I don't think we can get anywhere towards resolving these issues if we just keep on squabbling with each other. (After all, there are still HEAPS more things we can squabble over).

We have all heard that there are many more people who read these posts than who contribute to them. So, given that we all agree on these very important points, wouldn't we do better getting these messages across to-gether, than sh1tkicking them around from seperate points of view?

Just a thought, not an attempt at a directive.

I'd be in agreement with those broad definitions, but I'd still like the discussion to include the wider issue of violence in the community. I'd also like to see some of the things currently classified as "violence" described properly, whether it be as controlling behaviours, emotional abuse, manipulative behaviours or whatever is most appropriate. It suits some groups to have the message diluted, as it allows them to quote much higher statistics for the prevalence of "violence", which makes it easier for them to justify their continued existence. If more accurate terms were used, the emotive impact of that word "violence" would be confined to the genuine cases, not used to describe two people in a loud argument in the privacy of their home.

I'm glad you've done the recap, because it was becoming tiresome constantly reiterating the same things.