Thanks Fractelle.

Glad to hear that you've broken free and that you're
safe. Great going. Sorry also that you've endured
that sort of sadness.

Thanks for posting the link to xyonline and to the other
sites. (I should have checked the name before I mentioned
the site, so ta.)

Steele and associates. You seem unaware of or in disagreement with systems theories that explain how social institutions and cultural beliefs work complimentarily to maintain patterns of power and advantage, alongside existing patterns of disadvantage for people with less power and influence in the system. Your theory of individual choice as ultimate and possible for everyone suggests this.

Lucky you that you've never been on the receiving end of systemic abuse or inequality so that you may remain happily oblivious to the worst effects of the status quo. Lifting the veil of your blindness might be painful. It takes courage and compassion, but other men have done it.

Steel, "men will continue to have no sympathy for women "

I completely disagree with that comment and the sentiment behind it. Thats just as big a part of the problem as those who don't have sympathy for men who are assaulted because other men commit most assaults.

Fractelle, I won't respond to your comments as you appear to not want to get dragged into this.

Pynchme, I hope the sources I use are inclusive of both men and women. What I pay most attention to though is the steps taken to remove bias from the findings. Papers which start with the assumption that violence is something men do to women and never question that don't get my respect.

Some of the material tends to be only available via advocacy sites and it's probably a matter of opinion as to wether they are friendly to both men and women. That criteria probably depends on what you believe about DV in the first place. The most useful of these sites I'm aware of is RADAR, I don't like the tone much but they do reference some useful research and sometimes some junk.

My suggestion would be to start with the summary article at http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/170018.pdf - the US department of Justice is unlikely to be a front for a mens group.

There was also some interesting research done by Australian Academics
The the site I've got a link for is an advocaysite but as far as I can tell the research is legitimate and was not initiated by a mens group http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/dom/heady99.htm

I've also often recommended a book by a feminist author Patricia Pearson which looks at the harm done to the equality cause by the cover up of female violence. I don't know how available it is but it's an interesting perspective on the issue - "When She Was Bad". As you point out much of that is old style sexism.

R0bert

PALE... what I 'actually' said is this:

"What Rudd said is 'CONTRARY' to our law" i..e. he should know that violence as in reasonable force is ABSOLUTELY legal against ANY person attacking you.

That is not a gender based law.

When he says "All violence against women in ANY circumstances" he is saying something that is directly contrary to our written law.

He didn't 'break' the law in saying it.. he just spouted a mouth full of ..utter ruddish.

I can see how incredibly subjective many posters are.. thinking this is an argument about 'Who commits most violence'... complete rot...

The TOPIC is.. "absolute statements" and violence against women.

Rudd made an 'ABSOLUTE' statement.. about that matter which is contrary to our law... that's IT.

Any public mention of the unnaceptability of violence should be gender NEUTRAL....

I can't see why so many of you are wasting time on straw women arguments here.

Dear Fractelle,

I just want to Thank You for being so
open and honest in discussing a topic
that for you couldn't have been easy.
That was a very courageous thing for you
to have done. Thanks for sharing.
And my heart goes out to you for the
pain and anguish that you had to endure.
I Congratulate you for having moved out
of a destructive situation, and having had
the capability to set your life back on
track. Not many are able to do that.

I also think that it is a shame
that some posters
don't have the necessary
compassion to understand
and recognise another's
painful experience.

Violence is wrong. And should not be condoned
under any circumstances.

Showing a bit of understanding
does not cost much.
It's the least we can all do.

Hi Robert,

Thanks for the links. All interesting reading.

We can at least agree that there is a lot of conflicting
evidence, however, I don't doubt that there are male victims
of DV as well as female (as I said earlier), but the proportion
of people seriously injured or killed as a result of relationship
violence remains overwhelmingly women. Other types of violence - same.

From a personal perspective: I have worked in human services for a very long time and encountered many victims of violence; a couple of them male; but by far mostly female. I have worked with perpetrators too. I feel compassion for them all. In my experience, DV encompasses more than physical violence - there is engendered fear, control and humiliation. Of women, certainly I think that women who do not subscribe to feminist ideals have mostly survived by being secretive and manipulative. I have never met or even heard of a man, though, who lived in fear of his partner. (Mind you, the day isn't over.) This fellow writes of his experience, which resonated with my own:

http://www.xyonline.net/Nonviolentmenhavenothing.shtml

I don't agree with Elizabeth Pearson. I think she over emphasizes the notion that feminists have adopted an anti-male bias. I'm a feminist; I don't hate men at all. I don't know any feminists who hate men, though there are sure to be some. The only male bashing I have encountered has come from non-feminist women, to be honest. I don't share their views and I doubt that many feminists do. There are even a few men who I love dearly :) I could write at length about it and maybe will if we continue. However I do agree with her basic premise which is that we need to engage men in helping to stop violence.

cont'd

cont'd

You might have read about the difficulties of using the CTS (Conflict Tactics Scale) which I think is the basis of studies like the Dunedin piece. Michael Flood writes eloquently about it. Some aspects of that study - as comprehensive as it is; would bear further investigation - for example, note some of the questions asked only of women.

Violence against women and men in Australia - What the Personal Safety Survey can and can't tell us about domestic violence. By Michael Flood. http://www.xyonline.net/downloads/FloodViolencePSS.pdf

If that link doesn't work, it can be found on this page here:
http://www.xyonline.net/articles.shtml

Just speaking for a moment beyond our own social situation, I found this most interesting too:

http://www.womenforwomen.org/news-women-for-women/support-women-bi-annual-journal.php

Skip down to the second link - writings from both Michael Flood and Elizabeth Pearson.

Lastly for now, there is a real paradox, where various fathers' rights groups are concerned, in the idea that men are victimized as much as women, by women. That is, one wonders why such groups are working so hard to dismantle services, programs and laws that help victims (female and male), rather than encouraging men to use them. Anyway, we can continue at another time. I'll be away for a week or so but I'll check back later.

http://www.xyonline.net/Protectingperpetrators.shtml