SallyG, seek help.

R0bert:

<"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.">

What you are claiming about me or anyone else here saying that you deserve no public support is a blatant lie. It floors me because I and others have been distinctly sympathetic towards you in respect of your experience.

The numbers are a factor because of the complete disregard of FACT, and my question was asking why the misogynistic hate groups you favour seek parity. So, why do they?

Not only have you been supplied with links for sources of ssistance, but I have told you more than once that shelters like our local one have a record of extending assistance to males who experience DV.

Not one woman here has been less than supportive of men obtaining assistance, which is much more than can be said for the attitude towards Fractelle and women in general that you and your cohorts display. It's all just me, me and more about me. Given ample opportunity, not one male here has shown the least care or concern about what happens for women and children.

How many men do you know have shown up at A & E with broken eye sockets and other injuries - usually a couple of dozen times before seeking protection ?

How many men live in TERROR for themselves from someone who can and does beat the crap out of them at will ?

How many men do you know have been regularly raped or made perform humiliating sexual acts for their partner's various male acquaintances ?

cont'd

cont'd:

How many men do you know have crossed state lines, under cover, leaving family and employment, to escape some nutter - only to yet again have the perpetrator turn up and threaten them with harm or turn up and actually harm them ?

How many men do you know work but have no access to money; are not allowed to read or use a computer; make friends or even drive ?

How many men do you know have been physically harmed by their ex up to a year or two AFTER they've left ?

What I find MOST offensive, however, is not your (and others, like Antiseptic's) disregard of the cruelty that permeates our social fabric, but that you have had ample sympathy for your own experiences. I have not given less than due regard and sympathy for each of you, but NOT ONCE have either of you shown appropriate regard for the experience of women here, or of women who are injured or killed or who live in fear of ending up in either of those states.

Worst of all, you and Antiseptic and co. insist that YOU know womens experiences best - that YOU have the authority to define what their experience is or isn't.

I say to you - define your own experience. Call it what you will, but STOP adding to violence by minimizing and pooh-poohing what women experience.

It is NOT UP TO MEN to define and decide what constitutes the female experience of violence

Antiseptic:

"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."

Having no evidence, and no prior record of DV offences on your part, is not to say it didn't happen, is it.

As to your comments about funding and such, do you have any evidence for your claims? You might read and reflect on a library article by Morely and Macfarlane re: funding and policy under the Howard government. Surely it will comfort your fears that government might actually be concerned about protecting some of the most vulnerable amongst us.

Just an aside, apart from your offensive tampon comment on the first page, this:

<"This sort of statement means he need not fear being ambushed by a member of the enormously powerful DV industry at his next press conference.
Posted by Antiseptic, Friday, 19 September 2008 10:14:00 AM">

This remark implies contempt for the "DV industry". If you don't recognize DV as a legitimate issue now; then you can hardly do so later, for ANYone (including males), can you.

... but keep posting. There are times when you are even amusing. :)

Pynchme:"Having no evidence, and no prior record of DV offences on your part, is not to say it didn't happen, is it. "

Congratulations! A perfect example of the kangaroo Court in action. Lynch mobs should form orderly lines to the left.

Pynchme:"This remark implies contempt for the "DV industry"

Well spotted.

Pynchme:"If you don't recognize DV as a legitimate issue "

But I do so recognise it. You want me to accept the proposition that DV is more worthy of recognition than violence in general, which is an entirely different kettle of fish that I do not want any part of.

<"But I do so recognise it. You want me to accept the proposition that DV is more worthy of recognition than violence in general, which is an entirely different kettle of fish that I do not want any part of.
Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 12 October 2008 3:16:47 PM">

- and so we return to my original perception of your view that the specific differences that distinguish DV from other types of community violence are irrelevant and the violent act should just be buried in the heap of generic community violence.

So, that would mean that R0bert has no case; you have no case - because if you have a case then, like any other case of violence - prove it.

By logical extension, you also must be in support of government chucking your claims and R0bert's on the general heap and basically doing what you both (inaccurately) claim is being done now - nothing.

Please post again - I could do with another laugh today.