Here we go again. It is a shame that, in attempting to highlight violence towards men, that violence towards women is somehow downplayed or viewed with cynicism and derision by some (not all).

Of course violence should be discouraged regardless of gender.

But as Pynchme stated look at the body count. Also look at the number of women that come through casualty departments.

Why is it that we have to demean or minimise the experience of women to highlight violence in another section of the community. This serves no positive purpose for either men or women.

Many years ago women who experienced DV had nowhere to go and were expected to put up with their lot because of economic dependency. It was not until womens' refuges were formed (read Anne Summers "Ducks on the Pond") that women had a safe haven of escape.

Why not just campaign purely on the issue without the need to go on the attack which seems to be just about the norm on OLO whenever DV is raised.

Then the attack on feminists start again with no understanding of the origins of the feminist movement and more conspiracy theories about 'feminists taking over the world'. It is just laughable.

RObert I know this was not your intention and I am commenting more on the tone of comments that followed. Violence can be experienced by everyone but in this case the PM just happened to be talking about violence against women.

If he had made a comment about violence towards children no-one would be jumping up arguing why the PM did not mention women or men.

Let's keep it in perspective.

AntiS,

There are no times that violence against anyone is acceptable.

When people are being arrested or whatever you're getting at - the police need to do whatever they must to ensure the safety of others in the community.

Btw - you might just note that all you mainstream conservatives have never raised the issue of rape of males; DV; child sexual abuse by family members or any of those things. Feminist analysis has brought these matters to light and advocated for recognition and justice for them all.

So my questions to you are: Why do you feel the need to bury the issues again ? Why is there a need to pretend that women are not experiencing DV ?

Pynchme:"all you mainstream conservatives"

I'm gobsmacked! Most people I know regard me as socialist,perhaps leaning slightly to a more libertarian view. I guess it all depends on the observer's own position.

Pynchme:"never raised the issue of rape of males; DV; child sexual abuse by family members or any of those things. Feminist analysis has brought these matters to light and advocated for recognition and justice for them all."

What a lot of twaddle. Rape of males by females is generally rewarded with a suspended sentence; DV claims have routinely been used as a weapon in family law matters, whether the DV was real or imagined;child sexual abuse has been a matter of social concern for a long time, predating the rise of radical feminisam by some considerable time. All of the issues are also relatively minor in terms of the total numbers afflicted, yet the "mainstream" feminist movement is happy to use them to justify broad-ranging assaults on all men.

Pynchme:"Why do you feel the need to bury the issues again ?"

Who said anything about burying it? I simply want the terms of reference broadened. What's sauce for the goose and all that.

Pynchme:"Why is there a need to pretend that women are not experiencing DV ?"

No one is suggesting that except you with your poisonous little strawman. Why do you feel the need to misrepresent others, albeit clumsily and crudely?

Pynchme there is no intent to bury the issue of violence against women.

I'll take you up on your example of robbery during home invasions. If the government had poured millions into an advertising campaign against that particular form of robbery but pointedly refused to make a clear statement against armed hold ups of banks and convenience stores you might imagine that bank tellers and convenience store operators would get a little jack of the issue. If when a bank teller called to report a robbery the cops pointed out that the robbery was not during a home invasion so it's not really an issue the tellers might get a little upset when yet more home invasion speciific material was put out there.

Asking for the government to broaden it's opposition to violence to include all people is not trying to dismiss violence against women.

Pelican the perspective is that we have had years of focus on a genderised view of violence with as far as I'm aware only one clear statement by federal pollies with ministerial authority against violence against everybody. At the time the Violence Against Women campaign was started one of the ministers involved eventually conceeded under pressure that all violence was wrong.

The net result of this genderised approach is that men don't get the suppoort they need when they have a violent spouse and more women continue to be seriously hurt then might otherwise be because no body outside the home is telling them not to hit.

I'd not give a rats about the genderised nature of Rudds comments if the opposition to other violence was adequately addressed elsewhere but it's not.

R0bert

Robert I don't quite grasp the parallel you're trying to draw.

Like with the home invasion. It doesn't matter if there is a focus on home invasions, when all forms of robbery are already outlawed. That is, the law; police; justice system all agree that robbery is against the law.

Now - assault is against the law; no matter who does the assaulting. The fact is, however, that men are not assaulted by women as often as the other way around. If they are assaulted, they of course need to report it and seek assistance. They are entitled to it already.

On the other hand, the rate at which women are assaulted, in a domestic situation, has been entirely unrecognized until recently. Also, there is a contextual and qualitative difference. Where DV is concerned, it isn't just a one-off smack up the ear. There is a long progression of control and multi faceted violent behaviour - threats and the like. Women not allowed to see friends or family; having
little to no personal finances or control over finances; being
monitored and threatened with harm if they leave. The deaths
that we read about are often perpetrators making good on their threats.

I find it very disheartening when men have such difficulty in simply saying - that is wrong! It needs to stop! Whoever is doing it is WRONG. I don't have any problem disapproving of women who hurt men - why is it that men seem to argue the issue of DV? How can it be problematic to express disapproval ?

As I said before, how many men live in fear of their female partners? Some, perhaps. What do you think?

Hasbeen,
All I know is what I heard like everybody else. That a young lady had lodged a formal complaint she was sexually abused by three men.
At this stage the police are taking this complaint seriously.
Now I dont know about football players Socker plays or piano players.
It really makes little difference to me.
What I am concerned about however in todays culture is that police have had to protect the property where the alledged assualt took place.

They say some people have been threatening and abusing the owners because there was a foot ball match coming up and they were supporting the players.
All in all pretty awful stuff and well worth our PM to take note.

For once in his life I agree with PM Rudd.

It was the right thing to do to say something.

Nobody should abuse anybody but for goodness sake the figures and facts speak for themselves- Men Do abuse women. Men do assualt women. Men Do rape women.
Come to think of it I dont think there are many lady bank robbers either.
Women stealing cars- Umm perhaps a few.

Hey guys we gals are looking good:)