Today is White Ribbon Day, the "International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women".

The campaign has grown to the point that today it has a "Foundation" with 7 employees and a massive budget and the support of the PM, as well as many other prominent men and groups.

Last year there was a furore because the Foundation published with much fanfare a media release which claimed that 1/3 of boys thought it OK to hit girls. When the actul report they claimed to be quoting was released, it was found that it actually said precisely the opposite. A retraction was very quietly published some weeks later.

The Press has been much more circumspect this year, with little coverage today, although the C-M published a release quoting "new figures" without further explication, that "reveal" "MORE than half of Australian women will face some form of sexual or physical violence in their lifetime.

And almost 100,000 women a year experience sexual assault"

When we finally get told where the "new figures" came from, will we find that they're as reliable as the completely fabricated ones from last year?

I cannot support the campaign because it has a history of dishonesty and distortion of facts, it ignores the 2/3 of all violence that is experienced by males and it fails children by ignoring the enormous danger they face in families where the biological father is absent.

It is seriously flawed and divisive.

A small correction. The post above should have refeered to the "enormously increased" danger faced by children in mother-only households.

Anti

If your decision lies purely on your perception of a history of dishonesty and distorted facts then that is your right. However, if your lack of support masks another agenda to deny that domestic violence continues to be a problem in families where women and/or children are the abused (by men) then I cannot agree.

I don't know the rate of violence within single parent households. I know in many cases single mothers are facing violence from their grown sons in difficult situations. Do you want to start a campaign for that too?

You are right though on one score. We do need to do more to reduce (and hopefully eradicate) all forms of domestic and other violence. We need to do it as a cohesive group though, and not play my woe is bigger than yours. Or deny the fact that women are abused by men more than the other way around.

Denial isn't going to help. We also need to provide support for men and women who commit violence through counselling, training and education. I suspect most people who commit violence are facing their own demons of various sorts and more assistance with anger control etc would go a long way. Maybe for some it is too late or irreversible, but even if the success rate is only 50% it would be worth it.

In relation to children, there are better reporting mechanisms than in previous years which puts the responsibility onto carers, teachers, doctors and other professionals to report cases of suspected abuse regardless of the gender of the abuser.

The other aspect is a reluctance to remove children from less than desirable family situations. Although I know the problem is not an easy one, because what do we do with these children? How do we monitor the foster homes where they end up?

Sometimes governments decide that leaving the children in their home is the best option as long as strong support networks and assistance is offerred. Other times the problems are too great and removal is the best option.

Come on septic it's really just because the feminists are involved. You're like a feminist with a wet spot over a new NRL scandal!

Generally though, I'd like to propose any organisation that release b-llshit figures to have to use the apology as the main focus for their next national day.

We cant have people abusing these days, as there's only 365 of them, and foundations with pet causes such as Cross Fingers Day deserve the spot if others are gonna abuse the privilege.

http://blogs.news.com.au/jackmarxlive/index.php/news/comments/cross_fingers_day/
( Yep here it is again. It's the funniest thing I've ever seen, and explains brilliantly the whole phenomena of last White Ribbon Day. It's on topic too. )

Imagine if the White Ribbon lot covered their website today with an apology to all those school boys they slagged off last year. I think that would be a gesture fitting of the intention to deal honestly and fairly with the topic of domestic violence rather than the intention to portray a one-sided witch hunt.

They could also include further quotes from the same 'research' they used last year...

'Males hitting females was seen, virtually by everyone, to be unacceptable...however, it appeared to be quite acceptable for a girl to hit a boy'

and

'There was no spontaneous recognition that verbal abuse or a female hitting her boyfriend could also constitute dating violence, however, these were among the prevalent forms of violence occurring.'

and

'The key factor behind the use of violence for females towards males was, primarily, one of an expression of frustration or anger: hence, reacting to being "out of control" and needing to "get his attention", "˜to make him listen,"… "guys deserve it"'

from the National Crime Prevention Report on Young People and Domestic Violence (2001).

Has anyone stopped to pay any thought to the crime of torture, go to the link below and read and pay serious attention to the provocation defence and also the section under torture.

http://www.aussielegal.com.au/informationoutline~SubtopicDetailsID~811.htm

Now I am not arguing that it is right that someone should be assaulted that is smaller than another but with rights come Responsibilities and yes it it a pre-concieved idea that,

"'The key factor behind the use of violence for females towards males was, primarily, one of an expression of frustration or anger: hence, reacting to being "out of control" and needing to "get his attention", "˜to make him listen,"… "guys deserve it"'"

Also if a man has a woman that is r//ting the ar/e of blokes and women for drugs while he fights his guts out to bring his child home that has been physically and psychologically abused by lies and perjury and that woman continues to play at ridicule of the man behind his back while saying that she wants the child home as much as him to his face and that man breaks after 9 years of this and she hits him should it be right that the woman hide behind the "White Ribbon Day" and what it stands for?

Remember the link and the crime of torture

Thanks
From Dave

White Ribbon day, or Gender Discrimination Day is what it should be called. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd supports it so it must be important, or that's what we are supposed to think but in fact any political agenda that supports Kevin Rudd's religious ideology, he has that ribbon pinned to his little jacket & we are to take him seriously as a PM. In fact it's just another tax exempt institution sharing in the 'Purple Money' that charity organizations thrive on. The claim's that there is no excuse for domestic violence is a nice thought but it is a campaign for the send the cheque here money spinners & as ridiculous as Bob Hawks "no child in poverty" claim. The religious gender discriminators that are benefiting from it, as well as the female cowards that hide behind it whilst they destroy the male father figure in children's lives under the full support of the law.

Lol It is kinda cute. I read myoath.com.au. All these wealthy capitalistic pigs patting themselves on the back for not being violent towards women while they feed off the riches of exploitation. It often makes me wonder if the guilt associated with gaining too much wealth for little talent or tangible contribution to society is behind these 3 minute poster causes. See I am a good person they scream. I wonder if they have a secretary to remind them each day what colour ribbon to wear.

I would respect Kevin Rudd if he said to his staff, go home and spend time with your families. I would respect Dicko if he apologised for the emotional violence he perpetrated against young contestants on the Idol show. I would respect Gerry Harvey if he apologised for seducing families into high interest rate debt that causes stress in marriages. I would respect Joe Hockey if he apologised on behalf of the liberal party for ending the egalitarian nature of Australia's workplace resulting in financial and work pressures in struggling families. I would respect David Koch if he put a sock in it. I would respect Hazram El Masri he if started a campaign for the rights of women within his own dysfunctional community.

Fighting for what is right takes a lot of courage and only a coward would choose the ribbon way out.

Missus that's a classic post. Seriously Inspiring.

Let them put their policies where their mouths are. Or make them tie a ribbon around their mouth until they can back it up with action themselves.

I proudly am a supporter of this day.
A former boss, today sent me his annual plea take the pledge.
I did he did years ago.
It took guts for him to stand and tell his blokey mates of a childhood watching his mum being bashed.
Yes women hit men too, but does that lessen the gutless act of wife bashing?
Would those who dislike this day, regardless of who supports it, change their minds if it was their daughter being bashed?
Yes its a crime from either sex and prison should follow but surely it remains a gutless act?

Belly

No I would not appreciate if it were my daughter.

I would appreciate if she suffered in the workplace she would feel the freedom to take action without causing her to be rejected for future job opportunities.

I would appreciate it if lawyers and the law were actually accessible and the process did not cause far worse emotional injury as it does atm.

I would appreciate that society treated people fairly and there was better wealth distribution so the factors that lead to violence and emotional distress were lessened.

Men are violent toward men as well, maybe moreso. If society addressed the cause rather than the symptoms hopefully far fewer people would suffer as the result of violent attacks. This is where the captains of industry and the politicians have a social contract. Oppression, suppression, exploitation, inequity all lead to social dysfunction.

And I would hope if a male worked up the "courage" to lecture my blokey husband on violence toward women my daughter would spit in their face. How judgemental can you get?

Thank you Houellebecq

Dear Antiseptic,

I came across this website that may be
of interest:

http://www.dadsontheair.net/doweignoreviolenceagainstmen/

According to the ABS Safety Survey it was found that
5.8% of females and 10.8% of males, 15 years plus
are subjected to threats of physical and sexual
abuse each year.

Therefore the White Ribbon Day tells only half the
story. As the website that I've cited here tells us:

"This annual spotlight on violence against women, while
extremely worthy, is ineffectual at reducing violence
because it emphasizes gender as the primary explanation
while downplaying a significant body of evidence
indicating that other factors are most likely involved.
Violence is prevalent amongst young people, and it is
usually linked to social disadvantage, drug and alcohol
abuse, mental health issues, and inadequate conflict
managment and affect regulation skills..."

Perhaps men's lobby groups could use White Ribbon Day
to also bring out their issues and concerns?
This is an opprtunity for them to speak out.
As the saying goes, "If life deals you lemons,
make lemonade."

Take this opportunity to let politicians know that all
victims of violence are entitled to support and
assistance whatever their gender.

Complaining about White Ribbon Day won't achieve
as much as actually doing something about it,
i.e. lobbying for change.

Like Yabby, I do support white ribbon day. I would like the anti-domestic violence message out there all the time.

For too many years, women and children have been victims in their own homes of violence perpetrated by a male (father, boyfriend or stepfather), and they have been left unaided by everyone else because it was considered no-one else's business. Men had the right to 'discipline' their 'possessions'.

Many men today are still unhappy that they have now legally lost this 'right' to do as they please to their family members.

Thankfully those situations are much less prevalent now. It has improved since police have been able to charge the abusers without their family members making an official complaint.

Yes, women do abuse children and men. No one has ever said they don't.
In the emergency wards I have worked on over the years, the women and children seemed to be admitted more often than the men after domestic violence.
Men came in after being bashed by other men - either from domestic violence or street violence of some sort.
Unless weapons were used, the women and children always came off second best from the men in their home.

If some people aren't happy with white ribbon day's message and would like a day to spread the message about women who bash men, then by all means start arranging your own ribbon day.

Foxy, thanks for that, nice quote. You're absolutely correct about lobbying, there is a reasonably active effort in that regard, but it won't get anywhere as long as the ALP is in power, since it is controlled by the white-collar unions which are all dominated by feminist women and men who pander to them.

TheMissus:"only a coward would choose the ribbon way out."

Yep. A prepackaged conscience for sale at only a couple of bucks - it's a no-brainer... literally.

Belly:"Would those who dislike this day, regardless of who supports it, change their minds if it was their daughter being bashed?"

No. The fact that you even ask the question means you don't grasp the issue. no one disputes that violence against women is wrong, all we're after is an acknowledgement that men matter too. You ask of my daughter, when I know that my son has 3-4 times as much chance of being bashed as she does, yet no one is taking a blind bit of notice of him.

suzeonline:"Yes, women do abuse children and men. No one has ever said they don't."

White Ribbon has never said they do, that's the point. If they were the only source of data, we'd all think that men never suffered violence of any kind. They've also never said a thing about violence against men being in any way unacceptable, only that directed at women.

I'd support their campaign if it were inclusive instead of exclusive and divisive. At the moment it's just another manbash designed to make women feel better at the expense of men, while extracting the maximum amount of grant cash possible. It's obviously working for you.

White ribbon day what a load of garbage, spent the past 30 yrs being abused in one way or another and nothing changed yesterday, still isolated from all walks of life, still have to watch the lies being stated on the idiot box that there is support out there,crass.

Just insist that all of the women around you wear a white ribbon as well...and explain why.

TheMissus, I only wish you were the definition of our legal system because I'd know that justice would be fair & just. You summed it all up for me by stating how over opinionated the pathetic do gooders can be. Let them face the position of having their children stripped from them by psychological abuse & grooming, circumstances that are supported by the law & see if they don't retaliate to the driving antagonism that sends one over the edge when it concerns their Kid's. Equity & equality is the cure to domestic violence, not more gender discrimination for the sake of another religious based charity calling themselves, "White Ribbon".

Where I live White Ribbon Day is a non-event. However, my community is small enough that those few men who are violent towards women are easily identified and effectively ostracised.

Having said that, it's very telling how some men here feel threatened by this positive action by other men to try and eliminate violence against women.

CJMorgan:"t's very telling how some men here feel threatened by this positive action by other men to try and eliminate violence against women."

Let me ask you a question, little fella. On every thread relating to gender you pop up with the same fatuous type of comment trying to ascribe some form of inadequacy or "unmanliness" to those men who disagree with your own peculiar point of view. Did Mum make you wear dresses and play with dolls?

You have a very queer idea of manliness indeed. Perhaps one better suited to the possession of a different kind of gonad and the wearing of "sensible shoes"...

I'll let the reader decide whether your claims have any validity in the context of what has been written in this thread.

Anti,

I'm not fond of Green Peace but that doesn't negate their cause(s).

Sure there is female violence mental and physical on males too (more than what people acknowledge but it doesn't alter the fact that many women cop male violence (any violence is unacceptable). But in the real world Male on Female is both the most visible and most common when compared to Female on male.

If the hype slows down one form of violence then that has to be good.

Put another way you appear to be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

The cause is valid.

Examinator:"I'm not fond of Green Peace but that doesn't negate their cause(s)."

That's a non sequitur, I'm afraid, I've already acknowledged their cause has merit, but it's not broad enough and it impugns men, especially when combined with the deliberate dishonesty they showed last year and probably this year too, given that I can't find any reference to where the "new figures" mentioned in the C-M release came from...

Examinator:"If the hype slows down one form of violence then that has to be good."

Not if it leads to a massive rise in violence against males by females, as seems to be the case. the NSW Bureau of crime statistics released data recently showing that violence perpetrated by females against males is the fastest growing category of assault.

Just to reiterate, for every woman injured due to violence, about 4 men will be and no one ever mentions them, except to call them "unmanly" for not just lying down and taking it, like good little dollies.

Well said Belly and Suzie.

The White Ribbon Campaign was started by a group of men in Canada who were appalled at a mass killing there. A fella who applied to do engineering at a Montreal University and didn't get in (but did get in to Arts or something), walked in, separated male and female students and shot the female engineering students then another few women. Fourteen people altogether I think. He said that he hated feminists and blamed them because he didn't get into the course he wanted. He also had a background of domestic abuse against his young wife and child.

Men in Montreal rallied to decry the gunman's actions and to express a firm commitment to non-violence.

As to the reporting error you keep blabbing on about Antiseptic; it wasn't "quietly' reported. I recall when it came out last year in the newspapers because Dr. Flood noted the error and immediately made it public knowledge. I think the report was of research done by some group commissioned by the WRC. I think people should look up the report and research and read it for themselves as I did last year. As usual you ignore any information and you have had an active campaign going against Dr. Flood for a long time because he is a major researcher and commentator on gender issues and pro-feminist.

Antiseptic you're a liar. You should hang your head in shame.

Btw: Can't post to the suicide comment right now because of post limits but I note over there that you are LYING AGAIN. The "steadily increasing rate of suicide for young men" to which you refer is a proportion of ALL suicide which has fluctuated downward over the past century. The suicide rate is in decline across the board and currently approximate rates from around 1920; might even be lower than the figures for 1920.

You're a victim of your own malice.

pynchme:"He also had a background of domestic abuse against his young wife and child."

He had no wife or child, he was never married...

He was also very probably psychotic or at least had a serious personality disorder, which is hardly typical of your average Australian bloke (despite your and sharkfin's belief that 80% of men are defective), so why he became a poster boy for the anti-DV campaign I'll never know.

The correction that was published (it wasn't Flood who did so, but the head of the White Ribbon foundation; Flood was the one who made the original dishonest claims and never retracted as far as I can recall. Ha has been doing so for years, as you correctly point out.

I'll leave your suicide comments to the discussion in the other thread, except to direct you to the ABS, or even the report you referenced on that thread. Suffice to say you're quite wrong, as usual.

So many that suggest they support an anti violence campaign are so very verbally abusive. Therein lies my point.

I was briefly exposed to violence by a male. Very briefly lol. I was not a victim of male violence though, being a natural born clutz one more minor bruise from someone I had no emotional investment in did not do me any damage.

However, I have been exposed to mental violence by a power control freak whose ego would never allow him to be violent toward women, plus afterall they were hardly worth the energy. He is now a multi millionaire and heavens knows how many emotionally ruined lives he has left in his wake in his bid for power. I have an image of him being first in line to sign up to this cause without any guilt his actions may have created the stress and dysfunction that gives rise to violence, both domestic and otherwise. It would feed his superiority complex very nicely.

I also hear that some men feel victimised yet many suggest they go hide under a rock. So we repeat the abuse of victims in society, learning nothing and only selecting the in thing, the 3 minute poster cause of the day so we can trot out to tell the world how good we are, but are we?

Killing unborn babies is the only more cowardly thing I can think than belting women. In saying that I have witnessed a number of women copping their floggings over the last couple of years. In some cultures the police are slow to act and frustrated by women's refusal to lay charges. I suspect wearing a ribbon (something once reserved for girls) might make a few feel better but won't stop one bashing. Saying sorry certainly has not improved the plight of aboriginals.

How amazingly lateral. Some misogynist psycho goes on a mass killing spree and Canadian men started the White Ribbon Campaign. Thank you for sharing that Pynchme.

I am hugely skeptical about it particularly when figures get fudged. I strongly suspect that it is more about power for a certain individuals who want to be seen to be doing something than an actual commitment to actually achieving anything.

I suspect that they want to propagate something not too dissimilar to the “all men would rape if they could get away with it myth”. In this case it is a rewriting of history to have us believe that all men in the past disrespected women and viewed them as possessions and domestic violence is just an expression of the frustration all men feel at not being able to discipline their possessions any more. I suspect that the people driving it hold themselves out as the solution but achieve very little while getting cushy government funding and high status in the process – which I suspect is their priority.

I agree that female – male violence should contemporaneously condemned and that this should happen more than one day a year. I suspect that part of the quote Foxy gave says it all:

"This annual spotlight on violence against women… is ineffectual at reducing violence
because it emphasizes gender as the primary explanation
while downplaying a significant body of evidence
indicating that other factors are most likely involved.
Violence is prevalent amongst young people, and it is
usually linked to social disadvantage, drug and alcohol
abuse, mental health issues, and inadequate conflict
managment and affect regulation skills..."

It was the gunman's father who had a history of abuse of his wife and child. It is true, however, that the mass murderer attributed his actions to his "fight against feminism".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique_massacre

Antiwomen: << Did Mum make you wear dresses and play with dolls? >>

No, old misogynist. However, she did cop regular beatings from my father until he deserted the family when I was in my teens. He never paid a cent of child support subsequently. I acknowledge that experience has influenced my view on domestic violence and pissweak men who beat women.

in a nation governed by a Constitution requiring all men govern and control all women the
lesson from White Ribbon Day is that women are most effectively controlled without violence.
might not hit back so often either.

Where would we be without whistler and runners input on every topic...

They're like a comfortable old pair of slippers.

Let's just repeat Foxy's quote again.

"This annual spotlight on violence against women… is ineffectual at reducing violence
because it emphasizes gender as the primary explanation
while downplaying a significant body of evidence
indicating that other factors are most likely involved.
Violence is prevalent amongst young people, and it is
usually linked to social disadvantage, drug and alcohol
abuse, mental health issues, and inadequate conflict
managment and affect regulation skills..."

CJ, I challenge you to punch any holes in it.

Also CJ, noted that for you 'it's personal', but cant you see cynical media manipulation and don't you despair as I do at the pathetic gimmickry of the 'raising awareness' industry as a whole? Their fudging of figures and misinformation for cheap headlines? Granted, anti is like a feminist with a new NRL scandal as I said, and I'd be disappointed if you didn't wind him up, but I'd be disappointed if you were really that blind.

And given the choice, would you prefer a gender neutral approach to domestic violence, educating men and women how to get on better?

CJ,

"It was the gunman's father who had a history of abuse of his wife and child. It is true, however, that the mass murderer attributed his actions to his "fight against feminism"."

Some people claim God got them to do similarly insane actions but as in this case it is just a lunatic's rationalisation. The difference with the God explanation is that no political cause could gain from treating it as the genuine cause of the actions.

Surely you consider his actions to be beyond the range of normalcy? If so then would you agree that his actions were driven by something beyond his explanation and not attributable to being "pissweak" or disliking feminism? A man who has the political view that he wants to fight feminism wouldn't normally do so by gunning down women surely?

Anti,

I haven't seen any correlation between white ribbon day and the increases in violence on men.
However, I acknowledge your wider point although I haven't seen stats to prove it.

Unfortunately your posts do seem to have show baggage in this area which appear to over state the case

Foxy
Spot on girl.
I go one step further in that I consistently reject our over-emphasised focus on 'sex' and consequently gender. IMO it seems to overwhelm almost everything else. We are more than our base 'instincts' which is what makes us humans. Just because we have these instinct doesn't me we should wallow in them.
To the degree we are almost two dimensional. Sure sex is fun but so are other things.

We spend more time on other pleasures aspects of life than having sex so, why the absolute myopic focus?

H.
Well said.
I think you'll find CJ would support Foxy's stand. Anti while both intelligent and makes good points sadly, his posts do tend to emanate anti female attitudes.(This isn't pejorative or judgmental NB I FOCUSED ON ATTITUDES NOT HIM)

'A man who has the political view that he wants to fight feminism wouldn't normally do so by gunning down women surely?'

I dunno.... Ever been tempted Anti?

Ah yes sorry; Marc Lepine's father was the abuser. I just now looked it up. He was exposed to his father's violence and was also bashed around by him until the age of 7. One can only speculate on how it resulted in a hatred of women/feminists; but maybe he felt that his mother didn't protect him, or he continued to identify more closely with his father.

The difference in assault of women and children V other men as victims, is that women and children are most often assaulted by men they love and trust and who claim to love them. A fair amount of DV begins during first pregnancy; and for some women after separation. That is, abusers making good on threats of revenge if they leave. It is also the time of greatest risk of homicide.

* 31 per cent attacked by a current or former male partner
* 28 per cent by a male family member or friend, and
* 15 per cent by a male stranger

In contrast, men are most often assaulted by strangers or acquaintances. It's still horrible, but less likely to occur in the context of an intimate relationship or ongoing situation:

65 per cent of assaults on men - committed by male strangers.

13 % of 185 male murder victims in 2006-07 year were killed by a partner.
Of 81 female victims of homicide in 2005-07 41 died at the hands of their intimate partner.

One of my primary areas of concern is male on male rape, which also often occurs in conjunction with assault:

http://open.salon.com/blog/bobbot/2009/05/29/rape_survivor

All violence is needs to be addressed, but first of all surely it makes sense for people to stand up against any form of violence. Suppressing expression of opposition to domestic violence isn't contributing anything positive whatsoever.

Interesting that both mjpb and Howler omit a rather important part of Foxy's quotation - you know, the bit about White Ribbon Day being "extremely worthy".

White Ribbon Day doesn't seek to address all violence, but rather specifically addresses violence against women - of which there is far too much, most of it perpetrated by men. I would also support a general campaign to eliminate all interpersonal violence in our society - of which there is far too much, most of it perpetrated by men.

What I don't support are the efforts, as illustrated in comments here, by those who wish to undermine White Ribbon Day as a symbolic stance by men who condemn violence against women by other men. I reject the notion that White Ribbon Day denigrates men generally, since the more men who support it means the less men who are likely to commit violent acts against women, which actively negates any 'all men are bastards' claptrap.

By all means conduct and promote a campaign to eliminate all interpersonal violence in our society - it's not an either/or situation. I'd happily sign up to both campaigns.

mjpb - of course the Canadian mass-murderer was deranged, but are you suggesting that his deliberate selection of exclusively female victims, his hit-list of intended feminist targets, and his own statements about conducting a fight against feminism are irrelevant?

Pynchme,

"...or he continued to identify more closely with his father"

...or he was a lunatic who was inclined to gun down people and formed the belief that women created a current problem for him and he was going to get 'em. Whether he was messed up because his father beat him or because his parents broke up(?) or it was genetically inevitable or something unknown occurred like a pack rape we can only speculate on.

There naturally will be differences between assaults on men and women and perhaps 31 percent of women are attacked by a current or former partner (although I suspect that is inflated) which is higher than the 13 percent of men attacked by a partner (which I suspect is deflated as I suspect most would be embarassed to report it). But in both cases it occurs and should be addressed and it invites opposition from people like anti when only one gets targetted.

"All violence is needs to be addressed, but first of all surely it makes sense for people to stand up against any form of violence. Suppressing expression of opposition to domestic violence isn't contributing anything positive whatsoever."

As Foxy originally raised it is likely that the measure is ineffective by misrepresenting the problem. The only action that counts is action that will help. We can all pretend that a sizeable proportion of men are beating up women and urge all men to behave but if that doesn't affect the underlying cause of the problem it is a pointless feel good exercise.

CJ,

I left it out deliberately because I didn't agree with the apparent diplomacy. If it isn't effective I wouldn't describe it as worthy even it is well intentioned. Thats how I use the term. The author of the quote is entitled to use it differently.

"White Ribbon Day doesn't seek to address all violence, but rather specifically addresses violence against women (by men) ..."

I'm suggesting that that fact alone is a problem as it is too narrow. You don't have to go to violence generally to avoid the problem. Just include all domestic violence from men and women and you don't invite anti's to bag it on that ground.

"...which actively negates any 'all men are bastards' claptrap."

It is arguable but it is unfair to put men in a position where they need to prove they aren't. I see that as a problem. You are correct at an intellectual level for people who look at it like that but how many do? Many people go on first impressions not intellectual analysis of outcomes. Raising awareness of Catholic priests interfering with children was worthy but it didn't help the perception of them even though it resulted in studies finding paedophilia much less common in Catholic priests than in the general population and even lower proportions than protestant denominations. Intellectually that also stops people from thinking all Catholic priests are bastards but the perception didn't go that way. To say they still suffer an image problem is an understatement.

I'm suggesting that his statements may well have been irrelevant. They are apparently all derived from a day when he engaged in some pretty crazy behaviour. I note that his father's name was Gharbi and he changed his name to his mother's. Therefore in saner moments he apparently hated his father not his mother.

Last white ribbon day last year, my ex boss spoke at a national conference.
I took his speech photo copied it very many times.
And dropped it on inch room tables in a very wide area.
Some time I knew men I gave out too had a history of wife bashing, almost every one , long term suffered more than the wife.
After they left, kids too,
I can not run with you here anti, sorry I think you are anti women.
But wife bashing remains a gutless act, this day see,s many say so, and it can not be wrong.
Yes blokes get bashed,and hurt unfairly, saying t is wrong too is quite right, but your claims are unacceptable to me.
Years ago, I saw a bashed wife , often flogged , run out of her house and stab and kill her husband, his last words God save me I do not want to die.
She just said nothing ,tell me who was more wrong?

Well you need to be a little bit careful. Sometime emotional abuse is due to people preying on and perpetuating victimhood. Even though it is not physical violence it is a control freak behaviour pattern. The most liberating relationship is one that sets you free, not enslaves you in anyway.

Foxy,
The link you posted is an extremely good read and about all I would do is quote the last 2 paragraphs as this says it all forgetting about the stats because of the non-reporting aspect and after downloading and printing and discussing in the mens group that I have been in today this is what was finally agreed

"Reducing violence requires recognising the primacy of these contextual factors. Approaches to prevention and treatment – as with child and elder abuse – should operate at multiple levels, addressing those contextual and personal factors that research consistently identifies as being implicated. The subordination of such a comprehensive approach to a "gendered" explanation means we are not effective in offering services to women - or men - who are at risk of violence.

The media has a responsibility to report fairly and accurately over the next fortnight. Violence is a community problem: labelling it a gender problem does not help to reduce it. We call on all Australians to set aside the next 16 days to consider all victims of violence, no matter what their gender, age, ethnicity or sexuality. We also seek the involvement of the entire community, including government, NGOs, and men's and women's groups, in the establishment of a new national broad anti-violence campaign."

Appreciations from me and group
Dave

Dear Anti,

I think that a great deal of the problem
is the fact that domestic violence groups
are notorious for protecting their turf
and their funding.

Many studies have been done that recognize
that physical aggression by both males and
females exists but they fail to comment
any further. As I read on one website
recently, "the tone of these reports is
manifestly anti-male and designed to exaggerate
violence against girls, minimise or ignore
violence against boys in order to secure funding
to run programs in schools and universities to
teach young men to respect young women."

That's well and good, but what about similar
programs for women? Who teaches them to respect
men - especially when they come from dysfunctional
families? Education should be inclusive - and aimed
at all young people. As Examinator pointed out -
sex or gender should not be part of the equation.

As the website stated:

"Violence against men, women, and children is
preventable, providing it is tackled the right way,
not as it occurs now."

Well I think that any active involvement by men or whole communities in combating any sort of violence is a good thing.

I'll be most interested in hearing what strategies for action are proposed.

CJ

Why would the campaigns be separate? All of the data and anecdotal evidence suggests that unidirectional violence is quite rare. The more common scenario is that a couple have an arguement, both of them say and do a few things that they shouldn't and it escilates out of control.

Teaching both members of the relationship to resolve conflicts peacefully would reduce the likelihood that either would be hurt. Therefore, stopping women from attacking men is a key part of eliminating violence against women and vice-versa.

Men are currently very strongly encouraged to take responsibility for their actions and make changes. We need to look at the social pressures that prevent women from doing the same.

Foxy

What a pleasure it has been to read your posts in this thread.

The political event that is White Ribbon Day is an abomination directed against men and boys. One can only imagine the outcry if a similar event with the obligatory oath taking was directed at women for the neglect and abuse of children:

My Oath - All Aussie women should swear:

I swear:
never to neglect and abuse children,
never to excuse neglect and abuse against children, and
never to remain silent about neglect and abuse against children.
This is my oath.

Can anyone imagine Australia's 25th Governor-General, Her Excellency Ms Quentin Bryce AC signing her oath while her partner His Excellency Mr Michael Bryce AM AE watched on approvingly (knowing that the grandchildren were safely being held by the State in a safe house somewhere in case Quentin refused to sign)?

The biological, psychological and sociological contributors to violence and other anti-social behaviour are complex. Politicians know that the answer will never be found in dumping a load of emotional baggage on normal, law-abiding people, while exhorting them to go out and convert others (which WRD is all about). What is needed is national scientific cooperation and funding to study the causes and political commitment, sans duck-shoving, to take national action. Unfortunately we do not have any statesmen or stateswomen to show leadership, tell the truth and take the hard decisions.

And as I was reading page 7 the add at the top of the page was an add for the my oath website.

Cornflower you forgot the context for your oath, it has to be set against a backdrop of taxpayer funded campaigns which imply that child abuse and neglect is something that only women do. It needs a setting where kids who complain of abuse and neglect by a male are told that men are unlikely to really hurt you or that most of the serious injuries are done by women so "child up" and start focussing on the real victims - those abused by women.

I wonder how the whole issue would look to those who support genderised campaigns if gender was swapped for race in the discussion. We can probably dig up some stats from somewhere which show a serious racial component to crime and violence.

Would we be Ok with publicly funded campaigns which said "Violence against White's - Australia says NO"? How about a white sheet day where high profile coloured people wore white sheet's and signed a pledge to not rob or assault white people?

R0bert

So an international movement devised by men to eradicate violence against women is "an abomination directed against men and boys"? I've always thought that violence against women is an abomination, rather than men trying to do something about it.

I had the impression that Cornflower is a woman, but I'm beginning to think I've been mistaken. It would explain alot.

You're really a homophobic, misogynist bloke, aren't you Cornflower?

R0bert - I know you have baggage on this subject, but I'm surprised and disappointed. Your experience of domestic violence perpetrated by a woman is far less common - and generally much less damaging - than that which is experienced far more often by women, and you know it.

Most issues of domestic violence have been generated by the belittlement of women, through the religious mentality of the wife should be bear foot, pregnant & in the kitchen where she is so called, 'belonging'. As long as there is a lack of equity & equality the issue will remain a 'Purple Money' charity that makes women a vulnerable needy object & makes men a victim of psychological abuse. Charities that the likes of Kevin Rudd's Catholic mafia will wear on their pretentious little $1000.00 jackets & promote with vigor.

CJ (Hi:)) The WRC has been one of the most important gestures of recognition that domestic violence is a problem and that communities should be involved in helping people at risk of harm to escape domestic violence.

Until now all the Menz sites have been focused on dismantling any means of redress, safety or escape for women and children in danger.

Since they are saying that violence as a wider social issue should be addressed as a whole; I would like to see what strategies they're proposing.

Does anyone know? What strategies are planned ? Does anyone have any concrete ideas on how this broader initiative is about to proceed?

(Indeed, it occurred to me as I typed that last sentence - has there ever been any barrier to a group like the various Menz organizations - from working to prevent violence generally? Are they already working to stop men abusing other men, for example. If not, why not?)

CJ 'Look at me, look at me, look at me'.

From your oft-told stories of your failed marriages, the child you are uncertain/sure is not yours (who cares, that is too much information) and your aggressive name calling and badgering of contributors on this site (was that muck throwing at RObert really necessary?), maybe you should be one of the first for a muzzle and an oath.

But you didn't take a WRD oath yourself did you because, "Where I live White Ribbon Day is a non-event"? So much for your commitment!

Fortunately you can spot men who commit DV from a mile off so and you label and ostracise them. "Hmy community is small enough that those few men who are violent towards women are easily identified and effectively ostracised."

Since when was ostracising suspected offenders an effective way of dealing with the problem, in the unlikely event you were right in your assessment and remembering that yours is, as you say, a small town?

How does it fit with that oath that you say ought be taken by others but not by you? You know, the bit that requires oath takers 'never to remain silent about violence against women'? Isn't that what you have admitted doing in your home town, ie., make an assumption, abruptly and sullenly send them to Coventry and do bugger-all else?

Where are the ethics in that?

Your support of WRD is like your support of the Greens, all bluster and BS, totally superficial and just part of your usual attention- seeking behaviour:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3238&page=5
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3238&page=6

" A 32-nation study found women commit half of all partner violence and are just as controlling as men. Two major US universities recently found women are more likely than men to "stalk, attack and abuse" their partners. US researchers have also found that "while severe assaults by wives remained fairly steady, the rate of severe abuse perpetrated by husbands decreased between 1985 and 1992 by almost 37%. In overall comparison to the constant rate of husband abuse, the combination of such significant decreases in wifebeating represented a 50% drop between 1975 and 1992".
"In the United States, mothers acting alone are responsible for 38.8% of cases of abuse, and fathers for 18.3% of cases. In child fatalities, mothers acting by themselves are responsible for 31.3% of cases, and fathers for 14.4%.

Can we get the hell out of this GENDER fight and do something about fixing things

Read John Bowlby, Attachment and Loss, The Trilogy, all may find the answers to all this.

These PROBLEMS have CAUSES and if we fix causes we fix problems

The Children are where we have got to START, and STOP biting at the adults we have all been hurt one way or another

Psychological and Mental abuse are listed as the same as Physical in the laws of TORTURE and carry the same penalty 14 years in gaol

Thanks from
Dave

As Mayor Quimby once said, I am flip-flopping. (And not just to stoke the fire)

I now ignore the fact that WRD is a farce, and put my whole support behind it.

I now ignore that feeling I'm being labelled a woman-basher by default and being emotionally blackmailed into joining. I'll tell myself I'm joining because I want to, and I am rising above it.

I now ignore the fact that the propaganda put out to promote WRD is self serving and inaccurate and biased. I won't let it colour my attitude to the day, and tell myself the end justifies the means.

I now ignore the objectives of WRD could be better served by looking more holistically at domestic violence than the current cheap slogan appealing to the desire to see things in black and white, heroes and villains. I'll tell myself the populace is pretty stupid and that's all they'll understand.

I'm happy to relinquish all my principals so that women can feel safer, and feel that men care. Every girl just wants to feel special, and after all, women's feelings are the most important thing in the world, and as a strong man, I can carry the load to make them feel better.

Houellebecq, that is spot on the mark ("girls just want to feel special") & just sums most of it up in a nut shell. Desperation to be the center focus of society, they have been borne & bread to be the spoilt brat & as long as they get what they want, nothing else matters.

Like Pynchme, I'd like to read some of the strategies proposed by the WRD knockers for eliminating interpersonal violence in our society. I also wonder what's stopping the various men's groups from addressing violence, rather than bleating on about women.

Cornflower, you are one of the most dishonest and downright nasty haters who posts on OLO. I didn't make the comments that you attribute to me - rather, they are your inferences, based on my support for White Ribbon Day and your strong antagonism towards me.

It's not about me, or you for that matter. I support men taking the initiative and trying to influence their peers into doing something to eliminate violence against women. You say that this strategy is an "abomination", but you don't say why - instead you launch into a silly personal attack on me and try to chage the subject.

I think you're still smarting from the thorough trouncing you received on the gay marriage thread, where you employed exactly the same dishonest tactics. Whatever gender you are, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Houellebecq and like minded,
I understand your point, I think, but what I don't follow is, why it has to be a matter of principal?
And how you came to the conclusion that the issue is, "women just want to feel special" as though this developed in a vacuum.

I would agree, that WRD is more symbolic than effective, however sometimes, given we're dealing with people, not necessarily principals, such an approach is apposite i.e. The apologies.

To me, the apologies weren't significant except that they were necessary for the (emotional) healing process of the afflicted.
I can't see that sensitivity to others need be a matter of principal.

NB. I'm not saying that the focus of WRD couldn't be substantially improved i.e.broadened to cover all domestic violence.

I am saying, that instead of getting bound up in matters of doctrinal principal, of it's not right, so reject it.

Think of it like our parliamentary system, it too is badly flawed, but rather than bring it down, we need to change it appropriately

Houellebecq
quote "could be better served by looking more holistically at domestic violence".

Exactly. Holistic view of society truth be known. General mental health check of the nation.

Justice is required when a wrong is committed. No real reason to stereotype an issue or a cause.

The Cronulla Riots are a case in point.

One special interest group, an ethnic community, were given what was perceived as special treatment. The violence against women by some gang members was unbelievably horrific. Any outrage was met labels of racism. The police under the politically correct regime of the day tried not to appear to be targeting some community members based on race. The violence and intimidation of the public increased. It was in fact anarchy. Due to special interest group.

Women came off second best. It was more important not be racist. So in fact many should have celebrated the intent (not the result) of the Cronulla riots. However the poster cause rent a mob did not,they never do see all sides of the equation so often can be assessed as hypocritical.

All that was ever required was straight out justice for crimes committed. So dividing justice into special interest groups is discriminatory. May have been necessary at one point but we have gone to extreme.

Meanwhile our children live in fear.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26402571-2,00.html
"The survey also found the younger generation doesn't care about the environment. It ranks almost last,coming in below depression, family conflict and bullying"

So please do not abandon the holistic approach, our kids deserve some at least try.

CJ

You are an absolute fraud and your silly story about how you handle your assumed DV offenders in your home town proves it. Now you move to distance yourself from your own boastful statements.

No wonder there is violence and suicides in country towns if they do what you are doing:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3252&page=8

How could anyone, especially in a small town, react to a possible DV case by ostracising the assumed offender and ignoring the needs the victim as you are so proud of doing? Then you boast in this thread about how clever you were!

You presume to look down on and lecture others, including the helping professions represented on OLO, but you really are clueless as proved by your smug and very wrong reactions to events that are going on around you.

To top it all off, you didn't even take the oath you are fast to recommend for all of those inferior beings around you.

Have a look at the arguments and sh/t fighting going on on this forum and nobody has worked out how to stop violence
Violence is the end result of mental endurance for that, that a mind cannot handle in the conscious reasoning
Now transfer all the arguing on this forum and place it in a single home with all the criticism and name calling put downs etc
Then stop and think if this is going on for continued sustained time then what is going to result
Now consider this I have tried to bring my son home to his mother and father because that is what that child wanted
I put up with a woman that was/is sleeping with anyone at anytime year in year out going off assaulting police fighting and arguing all the time and yet I am the one that is still trying to see my son and the one that is fighting for my very freedom all because of the sh/t that she caused
Thanks from
Dave

pynchme:"Until now all the Menz sites have been focused on dismantling any means of redress, safety or escape for women and children in danger."

What utter tosh. Perhaps the dumbest thing you've ever written here and the benchmark is very high indeed.

pynchme:"I would like to see what strategies they're proposing."

No you wouldn't, you'd like to derail the discussion. Regardless of what the response to you is, you will regurgitate the same demented misandric pap.

Cornflower, excellent characterisation of CJMorgan. I hope he gets over his fear of men eventually.

Dave, where did you get those stats? I don't dispute them, but an attribution is usually considered polite.

The whole point of this discussion is to get rid of the whole gender war as you put it. Once the White Ribbon Campaign becomes the International Day for the Elimination of All Forms of Violence I'll be behind it 100%. I can't support a manbashing campaign, especially one so corrupted as this one is. If I were the PM, I'd be embarrassed, but I guess politicians have no shame, do they?

Houellebecq, a truly noble sacrifice.

Examinator:"what I don't follow is, why it has to be a matter of principal? "

The principle is that of equity in a democratic society. If one class of victims of a particular crime is worthy of assistance, all victims of that crime are. Are you truly unable to grasp that point?

Furthermore, by focussing exclusively on women, we provide a way for vindictive women to attack non-violent male partners via claims of violence.

Anti,
Are you saying that by making white ribbon day about Domestic violence vindictive women wouldn't or (be able to) be vindictive?
That is an incredibly long bow, if that is your point.

If one was to do a synthesis of my posts since I first arrived at OLO you would find that I have been an advocate for de-gendering the law by means of de-sexualising it. However, one needs to look deeper to the causes for these biases. Evidence seems to suggest it is largely due to religious influenced cultural mores.

However, in the real world, I tend to think that any changes along those lines will happen in stages and should be viewed from that perspective.

IMO women generally still get the rough end of the pineapple, but there will always be exceptions. I am wary about reacting on extremes.

Up untill now, it has been a generalised leveling up process. To me WRD is part of that process.

Examinator:"Are you saying that by making white ribbon day about Domestic violence vindictive women wouldn't or (be able to) be vindictive?"

I'll try to answer the question I think you were trying to ask...

WRD is one manifestation of the way in which our society treats the subject of violence. By focussing almost solely on violence againt women, we allow those women who wish to manipulate the system a very powerful weapon to use against a man. As Chief Justice Diana Bryant understands, claims of violence are not always based on anything more than a desire for an advantage in Family Court negotiations.

Examinator:"IMO women generally still get the rough end of the pineapple, "

The propagandists will be glad to hear it, it means they're being successful.

As Goebbels said, if you're going to tell a lie, make it a BIG one and no one will dare contradict you.

Antiseptic,
If you had of taken the time and decency to read the link that Foxy so decently posted and I acknowledged, Thursday, 26 November 2009 6:06:50 PM, you would be aware of where those stats came from.
That link being:-

http://www.dadsontheair.net/doweignoreviolenceagainstmen/

Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 25 November 2009 8:24:01 PM,

Further if people would take the time to read the link:-

http://www.aussielegal.com.au/informationoutline~SubtopicDetailsID~811.htm

then you would see what is inferred by mental and Psychological Torture and the defence of Provocation

Again Foxy I thank you for that link, and I am not condoning violence least of all towards some one that is often smaller(female) but also male

But by that link I supplied, people will may be able to understand that mine or anyone else's mind can be broken and I will still say my ex could have been a good wife and a damn good mother if only the people around her had of stopped pumping her with drugs and alcohol and the rubbish that you can do to a man anything you like and he is not allowed break

Thanks all for your time
From Dave

Crimson hell it amazes me.
The length some have gone to so they can kick White ribbon day.
Yes men get hurt too, by some awful women.
But surely I and CJ Morgan are saying it is wrong for any to suffer, men or women?
In days not far behind us Friday night in working class homes was very often gut full of grog and bash the wife night.
I do not see this day as a lesbian celebration, I have seen the blood, even bone, the destroyed lives.
It may not take place on Chardonnay street but it happens far too often.
Have we looked at the growing numbers of children in care, not with parents?
Wives driven after years of bashing to finally leave and children who suffer.
They say many live only till next pay day, how will a bashed mum a kids live without pay.
If as some say this day is a fraud who wipes the blood and tears away tonight, is it worth worrying about?
I think it always will be.

CJ I doubt that it's worth us debating who's life experience has skewed their thinking on this issue the most. We both carry some baggage from past experience but making that the issue does not improve the discussion.

The men's groups have been working for years to have the focuse shifted off gender and onto stopping all violence. Mostly the efforts get lost in arguments with those desperate to cling to genderised campaigns. I don't know how effective they have been at it, I do think that there is a greater willingness to recognise that violence is a social issue, not just a male one but what role men's groups (and those who agree with them on this) have played it's hard to tell.

I doubt that the focus has always been just right but I am confident that there has not been any widespread support for campaigns based around a focus on just womens violence and excluding male violence.

It's a difficult area to make progress in with the supporters of genderised campaigns all to often willing to make the nasties of claims about those who speak out. I've been accused of supporting violence against women for wanting the taxpayer funded campaigns to be against all violence, it's been implied that I and others are abusers. I've been told I need to grow some balls and recieved various other attacks on my masculinity for relating my experiences.
Antiseptic is constantly subjected to the claims that he hates women although what he seems to hate is feminism, the two are not necessarily the same regardless of how some see it.

So for those wondering what the mens groups are doing about violence, they are trying to get all violence stopped, not just violence against their own gender.

R0bert

Anti,
Your crack about propergandists influencing me is a cheap obfuscatious attempt. If anything, it is comments like above that displays your baggage on the topic.

I will admit some bias, due to my experiences, both as an employer and
from what I have seen in my social welfare activities.

I might also tell you, I was surprised about the assessment that WRD isn't working, but I don't have research to challenge it. Therefore, for the purposes of this discussion, I went along with it.

It would be encouraging if some of the men on OLO who strongly voice support and campaigns to protect men from domestic violence would be equally concerned about women in similar situations.

I don't understand why some men are very negative in their comments about women experiencing domestic violence and anti-violence campaigns yet will cheefully and rigorously support similar programs for men.

It is possible to advocate for men and women at the same time.

It seems contradictory that some argue that governments favour programs directed at women while ignoring men's experiences, that you turn around and do exactly the same in reverse.

I am probably wasting my breath but I think it is not only hypocritical but self-defeating.

Onya Belly - we agree completely on this issue.

R0bert - I'd like to believe that men's groups have "been working for years to have the focus shifted off gender and onto stopping all violence". However, I don't see any evidence at all that this is the case. Can you provide some examples of where men's groups are actively pursuing campaigns to stop all violence?

Rather, it seems to me that they have a general strategy of pointing to bad behaviour by women, rather than acknowledging that the vast majority of seriously violent acts against women and men are perpetrated by men.

Antiwomen - I don't know why you think that I'm frightened of men. I'm a man myself, and most of my mates are men. We do blokey things like go fishing, watch cricket and get drunk together. However, none of my mates are misogynist losers like you, and none of them is violent towards their wives or partners. They wouldn't be accepted and respected if they did.

I think you need to come up with another gratuitous insult. We've done the "Pomeranian" and "afraid of men" bulldust - perhaps you need to scrape the bottom of your rhetorical barrel and come up with something new?

CJ, "I'm a man myself, and most of my mates are men. We do blokey things like go fishing, watch cricket and get drunk together. However, none of my mates are misogynist losers like you, and none of them is violent towards their wives or partners. They wouldn't be accepted and respected if they did."

What a load of cobblers that is. Do you really believe that claiming to be a 'blokey bloke' who does blokey things really impresses anyone? Then you revisit and re-write your earlier tough line that "those few men who are violent towards women are easily identified and effectively ostracised".

You really don't get it do you? A strong man is a caring man - one who would look for signals of distress/disturbance in his fellow man, is always prepared to take another aside, let him talk and encourage him to seek help. At the same time a strong caring man would look at for the good of the partner and family - making sure they are safe, provided for and have access to support.

All of that is very different to the mean, self-righteous, 'I'm all right Jack' who would gossip about and ostracise a friend who could be suffering from a depressive illness AND ignore the safety and well-being of the friend's partner and family.

Go and take the WRD oath for goodness sakes - you have been scolding others to do it - but I'd wager that doing so wouldn't change your outlook and behaviour one skerrick. Maybe that is one of the problems with WRD.

This thread could serve a very useful purpose if only it could bring home to people like you that it is up to us to take action. That means being conscious of and caring for your fellow man.

The sweet reasonableness of Foxy's posts brought tears to my eyes. Try reading them with an open heart. Well, maybe with more than one eye for a start

I genuinely believe that any work towards reducing violence is a good thing - including WRD.

RObert, feminists have had to grow very thick hides to cop an ongoing barrage of abuse. I'm a long time married heterosexual woman and mother of three who has studied while working in paid and unpaid employment. I'm regularly called a man hating hairy legged lesbian; thin skinned; humourless; sexless and accused of being on a gravy train or whatever because of my beliefs and efforts towards attaining social justice. So, whatever.

I'm concerned about any organization that tries thwarting efforts to reduce violence. Signs of Menz groups that do so without offering any positive efforts towards ending violence, but are focused on the uncritical subjugation of women and children as a necessary means to maintain a masculine role, include: reference to the made up 'Parental Alientation Syndrome'; the name Warren Farrell (Myth of Male Power) will be there somewhere; there will be figures presented based on application of the Conflict Tactics Scale etc. but not on the studies about errors of and assumptions underlying the CTS , and so on. All of that just heightens men's despair without offering any way forward.

I have no problem opposing women who are violent, especially where children are concerned. I would expect any organization concerned with men's well being to be linking to accommodation and welfare organizations to create a supportive network for men who are escaping abuse. There must be some lawyers who would work pro bono, as female lawyers have done. In womens shelters there are courses for self improvement, personal development and parenting; assistance with securing work and study and welfare assistance and information to help identify safety needs.

Those things were begun without funding and where service gaps existed then or now; referral networks were developed. Are your menz groups working on these sorts of initiatives, shaped in whatever ways men need them to be, so that men in distress have something positive happening to help rebuild their lives and self-esteem ?

Cont'd:

Cont'd:

Are they are doing anything or proposing ANYTHING positive to help men rebuild their lives or helping to reduce violence ? I am not in a gender war against men; I want to do whatever I can to reduce violence - man-man rape and child sexual assault especially of boys, are a couple of my particular interests in that area.

I have waited for years for any of those organizations to come up with some strategies. All I've seen so far is attack on anyone and anything that enables women and children to escape abuse or that confronts actual abusers. If the organizations see that step-fathers/mothers' boyfriends are a problem re: safety of children - where is any concern or proposal for action about that?

Why are your menz groups not actively opposing physical and sexual abuse of children ? If you all honestly believe that women are primarily responsible, are your menz groups helping men to identify potential perpetrators and working out ways to ensure that children are safe and that they feel safe to disclose abuse? Why are your menz groups not advocating alongside feminists for court procedures that make it possible for children's evidence to be taken with a minimum of trauma?

- and so on.

Cornflower: If you have a lot of knowledge and advice on how to proceed to stop other people being abusive and all; is there any reason why you can't collaborate with people in the menz organizations to put those strategies into action. That is; why not do something positive.

Belly, 'Zam and CJ: Thank goodness for blokes like yourselves.

For a start Sex discrimination must stop at all Government levels The FACSIA Minister just happens to be the Minister for Womens Affairs
Where is the equal counterpart for men? Minister for Mens Affairs
There was the question raised not long ago about women in the Armed Forces being allowed to fight on the front line, to try to answer, Why
All had to be careful in choosing their words as to say it just ain't right does not answer the question and the moment someone tries to answer the extreme Feminist movement began to scream sex discrimination, are all the women that want to shoot and kill men only in the armed forces?
Now the stupidity out of the way it seems we have got to the common purpose that all violence has got to stop
To do this we need to set a common goal and that goal should be the children
Then what is already in place for the women should just be duplicated for the men as shouldn't men and children have the same support as the women and children?
So in all equality the WRD should be stop violence day and all adds should just depict violence no gender format
Thought to end, back to the stupidity a woman on enemy front lines aims a gun at all those that say no violence against women going to just stand there and let that woman shoot them? This world is in conflict in all areas and all levels

Thanks
from Dave

Quite right Pynchme. With all these people opposing and denigrating white ribbon day on this thread, where are their ideas to help all victims of violence?

Many of these bitter posters are angry about WRD because it is said to portray men as the principal violence perpetrators in our society.

I see it as a way to alert all of us to the often hidden domestic violence issues in homes. What does it matter who the perpetrator is?
As long as the victims know that it is wrong and are empowered to speak out to prevent it or have the abuser punished, then surely that is a good thing?

Anyone who opposes a day like WRD should be seen as someone who condones this sort of violence. If they want to highlight another form of violence in our society, then go ahead. It's all good.

I don't believe that women cause more domestic violence than men, nor do I see evidence of this in our hospitals.
So, if there are men being bashed by women in a domestic environment willynilly out there, then they aren't being hurt enough to warrant as much medical assistance as the women in our hospitals.

The most prevalent and serious injuries I see in the hospital system are caused by men to men violence.
Why don't the menz groups focus on this instead of denigrating groups seeking to highlight hidden domestic violence?

suzeonline, "I see it as a way to alert all of us to the often hidden domestic violence issues in homes. What does it matter who the perpetrator is?"

I agree and the abuse doesn't always happen in homes because the offender can be living elsewhere (is 'domestic' misleading?) and may not even be the spouse of the victim. Violence between same sex couples is not unknown either. It is not uncommon to hear that investigating police have laughed off complaints of same sex violence.

A more encompassing term that reflects the modern situation would be Intimate Partner Violence (IPV). This would also remove any complaints of gender bias while including same sex complaints and retaining the emphasis on violence against women.

My preference would be for Intimate Relationship Violence (IRV) which would include the young and elderly victims and where it is certain that under-reporting is rife.

This broad net would encourage national research of causes and provide real incentive and pressure for political cooperation on solutions.

men are responsible for all violence that occurs in Australia
because Australia's Constitution mandates that all men control all women.
violence perpetrated by women is the responsibility of male management,
a responsibility some men shirk with a vengeance.
the provision of a women's legislature would relieve men of responsibility
for the management of women.

Still full of rage about this I am honored to be from the trade union movement, far more than honored to have my blokes/members trust me.
No not ever comrades just mates, no not lefty just Aussie.
I got involved because I care, about every one in trouble.
About fairness, for all, bosses too.
Do you understand this day for me and my union is not about women?
They my leader, a young bloke on his way to greatness is behind this as a message to men.
White ribbon day is not about inflicting pain on men, we are asked on this day to take the pledge.
To say violence against women is wrong, always.
I must admit, sorry honesty has far more value to me than popularity, I find it hard to support extreme feminism.
Extreme anything.
But some extreme posts here sicken me.
No woman EVER should be bashed, no man either, if RObert wants this day to become for all violence I have no problems in supporting that.
But bashed men , I am sure never wanted to high jack this day, be little it, to highlight their problems.
Unfair laws in divorce, biased towards women, has bugger all to do with wife bashing.

dwg:"the link that Foxy so decently posted"

No worries, as I said, I don't disagree with you, but I didn't recognise the specifics.

belly:"The length some have gone to so they can kick White ribbon day."

The worst kicks have come from the dishonest White ribbon Day people themselves. Why do you think there was so little media coverage this year? The media (except the C-M obviously, but their standards aren't high) isn't prepared to uncritically regurgitate stuff from a tainted source, which the WRD campaign and Michael Flood certainly are.

Besides Belly, not a single poster here has tried to mimimise the issue of violence directed at women, merely asked for some recognition that this is not the only kind of violence and that in fact, men suffer violence at a much higher rate than women.

I know you have to be "pro-feminist" in your Union/ALP role to please the women bosses of the more powerful unions like Nurses, Teachers and PSU, not to mention the ACTU (how long before we see the next man as President or even as a candidate do you reckon) but the vast majority of your own members are men. Aren't you letting them down by pandering to the "only women deserve mention" campaign?

How many members did your union lose last year to untimely violent death?

R0bert, as always, insightful and sensible comments. The trouble of course, is that if the genderised treatment of violence is stopped, then a vast network of women's groups that derive lots of income from grants through claiming to be assisting women victims of violence will lose their claim to funding, and hence their ability to propagandise, as well as the free ride for the organisers.. They will fight tooth and nail to stop that happening. Furthermore, the violence issue is what gives them a hook with ordinary women who might otherwise simply be disinterested in the recycled Stalinist mishmash they're offering as an ideology.

Examinator, really good propaganda leaves you believing you thought it up all by yourself...

Pelican:"It is possible to advocate for men and women at the same time."

Exactly my point. By ignoring the vast majority of victims in favour of a politically-inspired minority, the WRD campaign has no credibility as a genuine effort to improve society. How many times must I say "make it inclusive and I'll support it"?

Everyone has the right to be free of violence, not just women.

CJMorgan:"I'm frightened of men"

Yes, we know little fella. Your every utterance reeks of the stench of fear and hatred. Oedipal ideations combined with "little man's syndrome" is my diagnosis. Go and "see a chap" won't you?

pynchme:"blah blah blah Menz blah blah blah Feminist blah blah blah blah blah blah"

Yeah yeah, we know, "80% of men are defective". You go grrrl.

Suzeonline:"where are their ideas to help all victims of violence?"

You've not actually been looking, have you Suzie? Are you really so threatened by a broadening of the WRD campaign to include all violence? Why? What's in it for you to exclude men from being recognised as worthy of help?

All I want is to remove the political baggage from WRD and make it a day for us all to reflect on how we might improve our society to make it a less violent place for everyone, not just the chosen few.

Antiwomen, your every utterance reeks of the stench of your fear and hatred of women. You and your equally odious acolyte Cornflower are great advertisements for your cause - not.

Have a nice day. Try and think about something other than your disdain for women and those who support WRD, won't you?

Well, I see the "ladies" have what they were after.

They can now commit premeditated murder, provided they murder a man, & lay a suitable trail, before they do it.

Great stuff.

pelican "It would be encouraging if some of the men on OLO who strongly voice support and campaigns to protect men from domestic violence would be equally concerned about women in similar situations.

I don't understand why some men are very negative in their comments about women experiencing domestic violence and anti-violence campaigns yet will cheefully and rigorously support similar programs for men"

I really don't think that has happened or that it's what any of us are advocating. The closest I can recall was grudging acceptance of the idea of parallel campaigns because of the way the current government funded.

I'd be appauled if all anti-DV campaigns were focussed on violence by women with men as victims and I suspect that Anti, James etc would feel the same.

Mostly the call has been one to address all violence or in the context of DV violence perpetrated by both genders rather than the current completly one sided view of it.

As for denigrating women, in the context of DV my impression is that most of those claims are made about responses to claims that men do so much of the DV that the other just does not matter. I see a lot of angst about anti-female comments (most of which is anti-feminist) but apart from yourself very few feminists willing to speak up about the many articles focussed on bad behaviour by males.

It seems that pointing out that some women behave badly in response to claims about men is regarded as denigrating women but articles trying to make men's behaviour the issue is not considered denigrating men.

For those attacking the men's groups - perhaps they could be a little more focussed and effective if so much effort did not need to be expended combatting those determined to attack them and men in general.

R0bert

Hasbeen: <"Well, I see the "ladies" have what they were after.
They can now commit premeditated murder, provided they murder a man, & lay a suitable trail, before they do it.
Great stuff.">

Oh?

So when was the last time a woman walked into a university and handpicked a dozen or so men to kill?

Because that was the incident that sparked a WRD committment against violence to women.

Hope you have more than one case because I can refer you to hundreds of murders of females.

- like the killing of 6 or so little girls at a tiny school.
- Or think back to the likes of Speck who raped and killed 8 nurses in one day in the 1960s ... men have been venting their aggression towards women and children for a LONG time.

Any day that you pick up the paper you're likely to read another case of a woman being raped, tortured, killed or abducted and killed.

What about the lovely 15-16 yr old Taryn Hunt, bludgeoned to death by a 29 yr old boyfriend when she wanted to end the relationship he shouldn't have been having with her in the first place. He used "sudden provocation" defence despite abusive, controlling behaviours preceding the murder.

Or Vicki Cleary - stabbed to death after she'd ended the relationship; he got 3 -4 years.
Julie Ramage - strangled after she'd left him and he claimed she'd criticized him so "sudden provocation" was his successful defence.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22017267-27197,00.html

- and R0bert, it's a joke that straight after Hasbeen's comment indicating complete denial of violence against women, you have the temerity to post this nonsense:

"I'd be appauled [sic] if all anti-DV campaigns were focussed on violence by women with men as victims and I suspect that Anti, James etc would feel the same."

Well I suspect they'd be delighted to bury any recognition of or opposition to mens violence against women.

The more you and your cohorts post, the more apparent it becomes to me that WRD is a vital initiative.

Pynchme, " that straight after Hasbeen's comment indicating complete denial of violence against women" - just where in that post did Hasbeen deny that violence against women occurs.

That's one of my frustrations with these discussion, how often what someone has written is totally misrepresented. I don't know the context of Hasbeen's post but there is nothing in what he said in the post before mine which directly references violence against women and no denial's that it occurs.

A deliberate misrepresentation, reading into it what you want to see or is there an obvious context which I've missed?

R0bert

RObert
I wasn't arguing men support the actual violence occuring just that many are disparaging about campaigns to support women in DV situations. It wasn't until the 60s/70s that women facing DV in the home were told to lump it - there were no refuges and even family attitudes were of the "you made your bed lie in it" approach.

My point is that the comments about women are becoming more bitter on OLO and denigrating a program that seeks to help women specifically by uttering nonsense about a conspiracy to gain public funding is just not helpful in the goal of protecting people from violent situations.

What I guess I am hoping for (in a perfect world sigh) is rather than denigrate WRD look at more positive ways of raising the profile of DV towards men. I admit I don't know how serious the problem is, only the men who are in these situations can tell their stories.

Men don't help their case by being adversarial towards women (and those dreaded feminists) - rather spend energy helping men and creating groups to support men. Nobody likes to think badly of their own gender and I can understand that men equally don't enjoy being painted as the 'bad' guys, we need to move away from gender bashing exercies.

I know this is already happening and all kudos to those who work helping victims of DV regardless of gender.

R0bert: << That's one of my frustrations with these discussion, how often what someone has written is totally misrepresented. >>

I note that you said absolutely nothing about Cornflower's and Antiwomen's blatant and dishonest distortions of my comments a couple of posts back.

As Pynchme says, it's clear that White Ribbon Day is more relevant than ever, in the face of such entrenched, dishonest and one-eyed opposition. And let's not forget that it's an initiative devised by men - as opposed to those dreadful feminists that most of you love to hate - and further that it's directed at all violence against women, not just 'domestic violence'.

And let's not forget also that the vast majority of serious violence committed against both women and men is perpetrated by men.

Anti,

Oh for Goodness sake! Some times you talk such rot.
Not everybody that disagrees with your stance is influenced by propaganda, that simply insults other peoples experience and intelligence.

If you read my posts you will discover I too have suffer greatly at expense of a few vindictive/opportunist women. Daughter estrangement loss of everything, etc. Then there has been false claims and loss of career, lawsuits against another not including as a manager, had to deal with dubious nasty mischief making etc from some right royal bitches.

Do I need point out, that the apparent difference is that, objectivity and focus on the the cause(rs), not all women

CJ
"And let's not forget that it's an initiative devised by men "

That is the problem. The psychopaths running the asylum that create social disorder never are the ones to stand up and admit they were wrong. That they are the architects of dysfuntion. The wrong men.

Indigenous women are 45 times more likely to be victims of violence. Why? because the very same mentality that prefers to re-inforce the negativity of victimhood were running that show as well.

We are all victims if we wish to be. Once we have earned 45 billion dollars we can go cry on TV how we are a "survivor". What joy.

Meanwhile I am over the fat Tarzans of this world thumping their chest while they swing between different trees reminding the monkeys how cruel it is they have no banana.

men boss over women, that's the law.
a boss who can't distinguish between violence perpetrated by a boss against another boss,
violence perpetrated by a boss against an employee and violence perpetrated by an employee
against another employee wouldn't last two minutes in a modern workplace.
neither would a male who seeks to replace white ribbon day with an 'end to violence against
everyone day' last two minutes amongst men.
such a male has abrogated all reponsibility to women, the rule of law and the nation.

CJ,Pelican, Someone?
Perhaps you can enlighten me, I'm missing something integral in this discussion.
I can't see the logic of asserting that a campaign AGAINST ALL domestic violence disadvantages women? Perhaps it's my cultural influences coming out. 'All' to to me as an absolute,it means every single case, not 'some' or 'most of'.

I still hold to my earlier statements that evidence I have seen indicates women are prone to more DV that men.

I argue that because DV against men does have significant numbers (albeit less than women) the focus should be on ALL DV.
DV is the crime, nowhere in the statute does it mention gender specificity. By not doing so,implies equality.

In which case, the real problem is, non reporting of breaches and non enforcement of existing Laws.
The impediment is (religious influenced) cultural mores. So change them.

To me focus on one specific gender only entrenches RIC leaving men (children have their own specific laws)as victims.

The logic of this program seems to be, that sometime in the future (God knows when), the population will have a ribbon campaign for men, to finish the job. Meanwhile?

NB. I am saying DV, like H1N1, is Not Gender specific and we ALL need protection. Neither am I anti-women or unisex.

BTW I still support WRD, half a cake is better than no cake....it's called perspective.
Please, can someone 'objectively' show me where my logic is flawed.

Examinator - I think the problem is the conflation of White Ribbon Day with "domestic violence". My reading of the WRD literature is that it is a campaign to eliminate all violence against women, which of course includes domestic violence but is not limited to that particular form of violence.

The massacre of women in Canada that inspired the campaign was certainly not "domestic violence".

By emphasising DV over other forms of violence against women, you play into the hands of the sad sacks who can bleat that - according to some very broad definitions of what constitutes violence - men are 'victims' in a third of cases. This of course deflects attention from the fact that men are responsible for inflicting the vast majority of seriously violent acts on both women and men.

Incidentally, there's quite a good article about this in today's "The Punch", at http://tiny.cc/4a0vw .

examinator if you look at the power relationships involved,
and violence is all about power and control,
you'll find relations between women and men, between men and men
and between women and women are very different,
especially since the law demands that men are dominant over women.
Australia's governing document, the Constitution, is gender specific in the extreme on this
point, it was written and enacted exclusively by men who prohibited women from a vote and
from standing for Parliament and has never been amended to reflect a power relationship
other than what this prohibition on women personifies.
no woman ever voted or spoke on Australia's Constitution.
legislation granting women franchise and admission to Parliament does not change the power
relationship established by the Constitution.
what it does do is extend the male dominance of women to within the Parliament, inclusive of
men appointing women to positions of leadership.

to lump female violence against men in with male violence against women is a huge cop out.
conveniently lets a bloke in a dominant relationship with women off the hook .
neither would a 'don't bash a boss day' alter an untenable situation.
if men have a problem with privilege fix the law.
provision for a women's legislature solves the problem.
but this constant whinging by blokes that they're not treated exactly like those they dominate
is not only an affront to all men, but a blatantly absurd timewasting proposition from
which to conduct a discussion.

Whistler,
I seriously suggest that you refer to the history books:-

"Australia's governing document, the Constitution, is gender specific in the extreme on this point, it was written and enacted exclusively by men who prohibited women from a vote"

Australia was the first country in the world to give women the vote and NZ was the first country where women did vote.

Further it is not the Constitution that placed the burden on men, it was the criminal law as the husband was responsible for the crimes of his wife and all children of church borne marriage.

Also it is not just the Family Court that gives women the children a law from 1892 or 96? gave women "possession" of all children the only exception was the first born male child of church borne marriage he became the "possession" of the father

It was the Sex Discrimination Act that changed these things

Thanks from
Dave

Examinator

I don't support WRD because I think that it is based on a defective understanding of DV and therefore unlikely to work. The people who devised it seem to have this idea that women are always the victims and that all that needs to happen is for men to decide to stop. Therefore, the white ribbons will pressure men to make this change.

All of the data about men being victims too paints a quite different picture of domestic violence. Women have a much bigger role in carrying out the violence and therefore, any solution must involve asking them to change as well.

CJ I was attacked over a claim that Hasbeen dismissed violence against women in the post preceeding mine. I can't see where Hasbeen's post did so and his post was not a valid reason to attack mine (rather a diversion from what I'd written).

I'd like to see all the deliberate misrepresentations drop from OLO discussions, I'm not the OLO policeman but when I see a poster being unfairly targetted I do try and intervene. When it comes to interactions between yourself and Antiseptic and Cornflower I think that you are on the attack so often that no support is needed. Your constant use of the term antiwoman says enough on that.

Pelican I'm of the view that treating violence as a male issue is harmful and in some instances contributes to violence. A lot of the material I've seen suggests that serious injury is often associated with two way violence (regrdless of who starts it). A lot of people for various reasons feel that they can't just walk out of a violent relationship and being stuck with a violent partner who thinks that it's OK for them to hit when they are upset may leave the other person feeling that they should be able to hit back. There is no good reason that I've seen to have single gender messages about violence, there are plenty to say all violence is wrong regdless of the gender of the perpetrator or victim regardless of the context (DV or outside the home).

R0bert

CJ,

The article ok but, It adds nothing is simply argues against the extreme.(poor reasoning as it ignores other alternative views)

I'm NOT, in any sense suggesting, that more women don't get bashed or are 'pushed around' males....perish that thought.

Neither do I accept the 'poor victim males' argument, put up by Anti. As I have said he does flaunt his baggage, and is clearly running a different agenda, do not put me in his category.

I merely think, that gender differentiation/bias in law is counter productive for society, in that it encourages fragmentation.

I repeat violence is WRONG (period), regardless of which gender perpetrates.

My question was, HOW is eliminating ALL violence discriminating against women. MY CLEAR motivation is to get rid of ALL violence and pseudo justifications there of.

That by definition, means the eradication of ALL violence that includes that against women.

If anything, the male 'woe is me, because of nasty women' lot, are in fact, arguing by extremes not objectively. Thus perverting the intention (logic) for their own separate agenda. Extremes in arguments negate reason, balanced perspective and usually reality. They are invariably using them as a stalking horse for another deeper agenda.

Its a bit like The 'conservative' Libs rejecting the ETS, when what they are really objecting to is AGW. I object to the ETS but not AGW. It would be incorrect(poor reasoning) for someone to confused the two and accused me of being an AWG denier. They are two clear issues.

In this context, being anti women is a different issue altogether to discrimination, (alternative meaning) under law, both in intention and substance

CJMorgan:"By emphasising DV over other forms of violence against women, you play into the hands of the sad sacks who can bleat that - according to some very broad definitions of what constitutes violence - men are 'victims' in a third of cases"

Actually, little fella, if you take into account all forms of violence, both within and outside the intimate partner relationship, then men suffer victimisation at 3-4 times the rate of women. thanks for bringing that up, little fella, it's good to see you're starting to grasp the point.

If you keep this up you might even start to get over your fear and hatred of men! Who knew? The Oedipus bit might take a while longer though...

Examinator:"I am saying DV, like H1N1, is Not Gender specific and we ALL need protection."

Bravo.

Pelican:"rather than denigrate WRD look at more positive ways of raising the profile of DV towards men."

Why genderise at all? WRD already has a profile and infrastructure, why not simply broaden the focus to include all violence? I've not seen you get to grips with that question yet.

The simple fact is that women choose to participate in escalating conflicts, at least as much as men do. Therefore,it makes sense to focus on the ways in which escalation occurs and ALL the factors that may contribute if our aim is to reduce the incidence of extreme violence.

If one's aim is to justify preferential treatment for women to suit a politico/ideologial position and protect one's access to grant moneys, then the concept of inclusive campaigns is anathema.

Whistler,
I acknowledge your sensitivity on this topic.
I do think that you don't really understand the premise of the constitution if not our laws.

The constitution is the basis of what is the province of the commonwealth anything not mentioned specifically or indirectly(by subsequent assented bills) is the provence of the State.
i.e. The Feds can't legislate on issues unless they are covered by sections in the constitution.

One a Federal law is assented too that spells out issues relating to that subject.

The criminal code (Violence in all definitions ) unless specifically against the commonwealth are states' issues. The only exception is the foreign affairs section, that any INTERNATIONAL treaty signed by the Commonwealth take precedent over the states. i.e. this section was used to block the dam on the Franklin River because it contravened an international treaty signed by the Feds.

Therefore the absence of specific mentions of men's/women's relative power in the constitution is a non issue. Except for discrimination which clearly bans issues like violence as a means of power control between genders etc.

Examinator:"'poor victim males' argument, put up by Anti."

What a lot of tosh. Males suffer violence at 3-4 times the rates of females. That's a fact, not a guess and has been borne out by numerous studies.

When it comes to pub violence, street violence, etc, there is no focus whatever on the fact that most victims are men, or that some perpetrators are women. There is no mention, ever, of the fact that women perpetrate 90+% of abuse of children by the people who propagate the "woman as perpetual victim" line. How does that serve the poor kids who get stuck in single-mother households, especially in socially-disadvantaged areas, as so many are?

Even though you agree with me, the ol' propaganda tape is still running in your head.

Examinator,
You to need to read the fine print of the strength of the Commonwealth,

"The criminal code (Violence in all definitions ) unless specifically against the commonwealth are states' issues. The only exception is the foreign affairs section, that any INTERNATIONAL treaty signed by the Commonwealth take precedent over the states. i.e. this section was used to block the dam on the Franklin River because it contravened an international treaty signed by the Feds."

First, We have the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914
Secondly, If there is a discrepency between State and Federal then the Federal shall take precedence over the State on any issue of the same meaning.
Thirdly, The blocking of the Franklin dam was the same as the blocking of the Traviston dam
They were both done by the Federal Environment Ministers over ruling the State Environment Ministers
The Federal Government can legislate on any part of life against any Court EXCEPT the High Court of Australia
And last the Constitution states that the Commonwealth Government is responsible for the Welfare of All of the people All of the time,they're only shirking their duty and playing the rule of the Sharing of Powers Act,
"All" is total, complete, without exception it is time the Federal did their job.

Thanks from
Dave

dwg Australia's Constitution wasn't enacted by Australians, it's an act of the British Parliament.
Bureau of Statistics figures indicate that the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 has had absolutely
no effect whatsoever in reducing violence against women over the past quarter century.
http://2mf.net/news158.htm

examinator State parliaments were also established by men who refused women franchise and
admission to their legislatures. same argument of original intent applies, evidenced by custom.
an equal rights republic federates with States with equal rights legislatures.
'the absence of specific mentions of men's/women's relative power in [a] constitution' enacted
by a parliament which prohibited women is a stark indication of original intent.
provision of men's legislatures only is unconscionable discrimination.

DWG,

I appreciate your point however,the 1914 Crimes Act referred to Crimes against the commonwealth not individuals.

Also The Franklin Dam was stopped when Hawke agreed to use the section of the Constitution which gave the Federal Govt preferential jurisdiction.
Regardless of who signed the veto it's legitimacy stems from acts emanating from the sections in the constitution regarding treaties.

Whistler
I would be very wary about referencing a news paper on very much at all.
In fact unless the news paper article is the subject of a court case it has little or no standing.

Notwithstanding that the same legal principal applies unless it's specifically mentioned it doesn't exist in law.
The fact that men set up the states it bears no real bearing on current situation. The issue is what the current state legislatures do.

There are a myriard of gender preferential legislation and specifically regulations. The latter determines how the law is applied.

Of course you are correct when you lay the blame on the (religiously influenced) culture. My point was to eliminate All legal discrimination and then ENFORCE it. By removing ALL legal discrimination the pro man lobby would be emperors with out clothes.
*Eventually* the attitudes would change, and attitudes to violence would change.

Anti,
I was talking about DV and in the work place, outside of these control would largely be a matter of time and cultural change.

As discussed your agenda is clearly wider than WRD and personal.

As I stated earlier on in the piece, "equity & equality are the means to reducing domestic violence". As a person that has been through the family law system & experienced the corruption first hand, I stated then, "I do not negotiate with terrorist's." I maintain that statement to the day I die. As long as women are the owners of the law & given the right to psychologically abuse men & the children, the Catholic paedophile cult are maintaining their full support to hold men hostage, ransom & vilified for the sake of the government's religious mental illness, I will not & do not expect any man to negotiate with that sort of terrorist organization. The law's are at fault & the true lobbying child molester's are holding their ground for the sake of cowardliness.

Antiwomen, it doesn't help your case to lie repeatedly. I'm not afraid of men, least of all losers like you.

<< men suffer victimisation at 3-4 times the rate of women >>

Indeed - and the vast majority of it is perpetrated by other men. No matter what diversionary tactics you deploy, you can't obscure that simple fact.

Whistler,
"dwg Australia's Constitution wasn't enacted by Australians, it's an act of the British Parliament.

"ENACTMENT", yeah not a single argument can be raised against that.

Preliminarily "DRAFTED", in a little AUSTRALIAN country town called Tenterfield by Australians, What do you think the significance of Tenterfield is in Australian History and as far as my memory of the passed down facts of that preliminary draft there was a woman or two there as well, the wives of the men.

Now ENACTMENT is the reason that Australia didn't need a Bill of Rights because ALL ENACTMENTS of the British Parliament were to be governed by the British Bill of Rights.

So What did The Australia Act do when it removed the Right of Appeal to the British Privy Council?
It removed ALL rights and Governments have eroded right after right since then.

As far as the lowering of violence to women by men I will refer you to Foxy's link http://www.dadsontheair.net/doweignoreviolenceagainstmen/

All violence has got to go and the gender argument must stop because arguments under the DV laws in NSW are DV

Thanks
From Dave

The Australian Institute of Criminology has some summary stats on assault at http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime/assault.aspx

There is also summary info on DV rates by the NSW Police at http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/cjb89.pdf/$file/cjb89.pdf which while built around gender also looks at other issues such as age of the victim, location, time of day, day of the week, day of the month, month of the year etc) and has some coverage of non-DV assaults. Very seriously limited by the rates at which people report assaults but worth a read. On page 10 there is some material on the relationship between the predictors of social disadvantage and rates of domestic assault.

I've not spotted any attempts to answer my question earlier in the thread as to why gender baxsed campaigns are somehow better than a race based one. A quote which is relevat from the previous reference "Police data suggest that Indigenous Australians are far more likely to become victims of domestic assault or to be
offenders of domestic assault than non-Indigenous Australians."
Now which of the supporters of the current single gender anti-violence campaigns would find it acceptbale to have a single race anti-violence campaign? Any takers?

R0bert

Child abuse and neglect has been called Australia's greatest social problem bar none and it is worsening. The incidence is far higher in single parent households, which are mainly women.

Should there be a baby blue ribbon and a special day for all women to feel collectively responsible and sign an oath, just as men should feel collective guilt and sign an oath on WRD?

To answer Examinator, the only way to avoid the fragmentation of resources and effort and to ensure proper national study and coordination is to drop the emphasis on gender, and regard it all as Intimate Relationship Violence (IRP) or just Relationship Violence RV).

WRD is about gender politics. It does more to prop up women's groups and the DV industry than anything else.

men boss over women, that's the law
the more men struggle the lower the score
this is cricket, top score wins
man is the boss is what law underpins.

Lest we forget the masters of violence against women...
http://blogs.tampabay.com/photo/2009/11/terrorism-thats-personal.html

whistler, I can see that you are stuck in the past & religious mental illness has set in like rigid mortise but don't worry, it is just like having Alzheimers because the level of denial allows people like you to run away & forget all about it.

Atheistno1 the provision of men's legislatures only is not 'religious mental illness'?
please explain.

Herman Yutic, I have to say that you seem to be caught up on the graphics of that issue & to enter into another debate about the Muslim's,is another issue of religion & again to do with equity/equality & the fact that it is to do with another country. You seem to be side tracked from the issue that this is widely spread in western culture & it is our children who are molested & abused by the Government & it's religious pedophile cult's, that specifically support women holding men to ransom under a one sided law.

CJ Morgan, It is a fact of life that women are the main perpetrators of violence & it is a fact that women have the means to hide behind whatever measure of legal or sexual endeavor to maintain a cowardly stance of innocence. I know women who have done sexual favors for men, to have them stalk, harass & intimidate their partner's for custody of the children.

Gee, I thought Hermanyutic and Antiwomen were, well, really anti-women.
However, Athiestno1 (aka, 'A no-one') truly has to win the
'No, I REALLY Do Hate women Award'!

His last rant blames women for:
*all the violence in the world,
*all the religions and associated religious deviants,
*all bad Governments,
*all paedophiles,
and last, but not least,* the Law and order in our courts
(I am assuming this is mainly in the wicked, feminist-run family courts).

Goodness me 'A no one', you sure have some big chip on your shoulder.

To make you feel better I will tell you some things that men can be thankful for today:

Car mechanics tell you the truth.
The world is your urinal.
Same work, more pay.
Wrinkles add character.
People never stare at your chest when you're talking to them.
The same hairstyle lasts for years, maybe decades.
You only have to shave your face and neck.
You can play with toys all your life.

There now, don't you feel a little better?

This may answer R0bert's and Zaminator's questions re: why it is vital to continue WRD. As CJ said, the first important thing about WRD is that it's men stating their commitment to oppose all types of violence against women.

A book chapter that I read (I don't agree with it all but the overall makes sense) is 'Truth or fiction: men as victims of domestic violence' by Kerrie James. Chapter 9 in: Challenging Silence, by Breckenridge and Laing.

Of DV, that writer says that male initiated violence is typically ongoing, creating a climate of fear where voice, size, threats maintain a constant state of intimidation. However, no matter what the female does every so often physical violence erupts.

1. Height and weight differences mean that a bloke doing something like shoving his missus will be more damaging to her than her doing the same, like shoving, him.
2. Men were 6 times more likely to inflict severe injury (Strauss, 1993)
3. Male aggression is more coercive and controlling (Cascardi and Vivian, 1995)
4. Scutt (1983) studied violence in 125 couples, finding that women threw things and used weapons, hit men in the chest, punched, shoved, kicked in the shins; slapped with an open hand; scratched, pulled hair, hit with objects including a frying pan or broom, 3 were threatened with a kitchen knife, 1 poked with a peeling knife; 1 pushed down stairs.
However, no women punched about the head and shoulders or in the stomach; no men were attacked in the groin; no injuries were inflicted where they wouldn't show; no men were chased with guns, axes, knives, broken bottles or cars. No husbands were kicked with steel capped boots, none were driven furiously in a car or tossed out of a moving vehicle; none were pushed and held against a wall or thrown across a room; held down in threatening positions; strangled, choked or suffocated. None had arms twisted or fingers bent; none ordered to weed the garden while being kicked in the bottom; none dragged out of bed during the night.

cont'd:

5. Womens violence seemed to be a form of resistance to being controlled or subdued. Mens violence seemed to intend to exert control and dominance.
6. Men usually have the means and physical strength to escape. Even when they choose not to; they know it is still possible for them to get away. Women who are abused don't have the physical capacity or financial or social independence to escape; they gradually become convinced that they will never be safe.
7. Other studies show that women's first experience of DV often occurs during first pregnancy, and doesn't stop.
8. Women and children are at greatest danger when trying to escape or once they have left.
9. We've read of some awful spouse and child murders and murder/suicides; most of those had a history of DV behind them.

Examinator, my worry is that since there are NO strategies being proposed to stop violence in the wider sense; that no strategies will be undertaken to stop violence against women.

This mob is proposing that - if we just leave everyone's safety up to their point of view; coz it's unfair to be saying that women get hurt more (even though they do) - that ALL violence will be addressed. BUT they haven't got one step; not taken ONE step towards stopping any violence at all.

I think it is just another attempt to silence defiance against male violence.

When I see some effort and thought expended in addressing the wider incidence of violent behaviour, then I will feel more confidence in their commitment (haven't even seen that yet) against violence. Right now all I see is self-justifying BS, very possibly from fellows who have attracted AVOs already. Abusers are well known for minimizing their responsibility for the damage they do.

Pynchme

Your closing comments are vile. Exactly why a white ribbon day should perhaps not be supported.

CJ,

'according to some very broad definitions of what constitutes violence'

And where did those broad definitions come from? Ah, those expanded definitions are coming home to roost perhaps. Maybe the end doesn't justify the means.

R0bert,

'I'm not the OLO policeman'

Oh yes you are. You and Exam and Foxy. The holy trinity.

anti,

'The simple fact is that women choose to participate in escalating conflicts, at least as much as men do. Therefore,it makes sense to focus on the ways in which escalation occurs and ALL the factors that may contribute if our aim is to reduce the incidence of extreme violence.'

Rubbish. Everybody knows that's called 'blaming the victim';-)

Pynchme,

'Womens violence seemed to be a form of resistance to being controlled or subdued. Mens violence seemed to intend to exert control and dominance.'

Oh yes, they're only fighting back. Like this man perhaps?

http://www.watoday.com.au/national/anthony-sherna-jailed-for-strangling-abusive-partner-20091120-iprl.html

TheMissus: Oh? yes, quite to the bone. However, both Antiseptic and Dave have mentioned their AVOs, for a start. What sort of blokes do you think would be likely to sign up for MRAs ?

Have you any examples - even one - of where any of the individuals or any MRA group wanting WRD stopped - propose any measure whatsoever to reduce violence? Since men by far commit the most violence in the community, where is any proposal or commitment to opposing that ?

Any sort of violence; any proposed strategy.

They have had years and years of doing all that they can to stop women escaping DV; but not one strategy against any violence committed by anybody.

Btw - we did have a one size fits all for violence. It was police charges for assault; still in place. How effective was that in dealing with DV do you all think ?

examinator, "Original intent maintains that in interpreting a text, a court should determine what the authors of
the text were trying to achieve, and to give effect to what they intended the statute to accomplish, the actual
text of the legislation notwithstanding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_intent
clealy the parliament which enacted Australia's Constitution intended to provide for men's legislatures only as
the prohibition on women standing for Australia's first parliament evidences.
without amendment to the Constitution these legislatures remain men's legislatures to which women are
admitted under male supervision.
men boss over women in Australia, that's the law.
moreover, if the men who established the parliaments of the Commonwealth and the States had not intended
to provide men's legislatures only these parliaments would not have had to legislate to admit women.
as the law stands, girlyboys might be victims of feminism but men certainly aren't.

Pynchme,
"This mob is proposing that - if we just leave everyone's safety up to their point of view; coz it's unfair to be saying that women get hurt more (even though they do) - that ALL violence will be addressed. BUT they haven't got one step; not taken ONE step towards stopping any violence at all."

I have been trying to bring the attention to "This Mob" to stop the gender fight and start looking at the CAUSE of the violence, only one drug has continued to climb in use at the rate of violence, that being Alcohol, which it is claimed is involved in 85-90% of violence

Now we have a population that has severe depression across it and it is known that Alcohol is a "self medicator" don't you think that the two may run hand in hand?

All violence must be addressed, the same as All stolen and abused children must be addressed, not the isolation of one

If all of the stolen generations were addressed both Koorie and White it would have taken a lot less time to bring attention to,if all stolen and abused children were addressed then it would have been easier to bring attention to.

Don't you and others think it is time he said, she said, you said, I said,and it became WE said to the Governments to start to address the concerns of THIS Nation and stop the preaching to the rest of the world until we clean up our own back yard

When WE can progress from Me,You,He,She, mentality then things will change

Quote, "Give me the People, I will give you a World"

People are both Male and Female

Thanks From
Dave

suzeonline, you might want to get you're fact's right & stop using psychological suggestion to get your opinion across because you sound just like the feminist lobbyist that supports this child molesting campaign. I do not hate women. I hate what women do to others in order to get their pathetic self centered way & hide like cowards that they are in the process. Had you paid attention to my other post's, you would have noticed that I support equity & equality & that is especially for women, who are treated as second rate citizens under the religious/political cover of mental illness (RMI). Equal pay & equal rights is the cure to most of the discussion that has gone on here. It's a shame you really are that involved in your religious belief's that you can't see the reality but only the figment of your imagination.

suzeonline,
<Car mechanics tell you the truth>
Take a car maintenance course.
<The world is your urinal>
Get a P-Mate.
<Same work, more pay>
Work harder, in a more demanding job.
<Wrinkles add character>
Dye your hair grey to match your wrinkles.
<People never stare at your chest when you're talking to them>
It must be fairly impressive. Any chance of a look?
<The same hairstyle lasts for years, maybe decades>
Shave your head as I do.
<You only have to shave your face and neck>
I like hairy women.
<You can play with toys all your life>
Find some toys that interest you and join the club.
Hope this helps.
Problem solved.
And you wonder why men rule the world!

Pynchme and others.

IMHO The reasons we don't have any coherent plans/strategies to overcome violence are complex.
The answers are in our Religiously influenced 'culture'.

It is arguably in the nature of humans to seek security in an emotional understanding (beliefs) of the 'big picture'. These beliefs tend to be formalised in some form of religion with a dogma.

Most of our gender stereotypes emanate from 'the Bible', Koran, some static 'allegedly' divine inspired written/verbal religious tradition.

Have gained or been inculcated with that emotional safety blanket, we are reluctant to change, and will go to extraordinary ends to defend/justify those beliefs (DV, violence, toxic discrimination etc).

By the time we come to the practical application of day to day perceived gender roles (and power structures), we are dealing with both religiously influenced conditioning and human emotions. Not surprisingly logic and reason doesn't play a huge part in this it is a matter of gradual change. Consequently, they are almost impossible to separate.

It is easier, not necessarily better, to deal with it by playing on the emotions via symbolism and vulnerability, targeting (squeaky wheel).
Simply put, it would be too big a task to try and change attitudes on anything as significant as emotional (comfort zone) religiously influenced cultural beliefs, in one step. Consequently we have, as I said before, stages. WRD is just one of those essential stages.

If anything, I and others are advocating, we move to the next step.
not necessarily bucketing WRD.
Sadly, the effectiveness is being compromised by the plethora of ribbon days.

Generally speaking people have a hierarchy and tolerance level of causes, because dealing with the lot becomes overwhelming. Not surprisingly we tend to identify with those causes that are closest to us personally.

What to do about it is another topic.

Discrimination based on sex another issue.

Violence..well

I have this lovely male killer dog wrapped around my feet atm. The occasional lick of the feet:) He will use his violence to protect me. men are the same, so their natural aggression/risk taking behaviour can be useful. Yet some dogs turn on their owners, sometimes from being driven to distraction or sometimes because it is a mind snap.

Any dog be it male or female can cause conflict in the home. The neighbours also may call the authorities if incessant barking is disrupting the peace.

Our female dog emits a low level growl when other dogs pass by, we eventually discovered, that sends our black male killer dog into physco mode. She sets him off, he gets into trouble. Ah she is the smart one.

So yes men are more violent but then we also want them to fight our wars in the main, crash tackle each other in sport, and be the ones sneaking around at night with the baseball bat. So yes they are more violent. Blame them hormones.

The important thing is that it is not culturally acceptable to use violence against women. So any problems we have is very similiar to having a poorly socialised dog.

Then we normally blame the owners. Parents, family, society?
It certainly has nothing to do with ribbons.

Pynchme, "As CJ said, the first important thing about WRD is that it's men stating their commitment to oppose all types of violence against women."

CJ might say that but as demonstrated by how he says he deals with suspected domestic violence in his home town, saying is very different to doing.

WRD is about the politics of the women's movement and DV in particular. It is about maintaining a gender difference for funding and grants. In this, Pynchme presents as an unashamed advocate for a particular position and so be it.

However there others who believe that there are common threads running through violence and anti-social acts including intimate partner violence, or family violence. Nothing can change and a lot of resources stand to be wasted until there is disciplined study at a national level of the causes of violence and there is a national strategy to deal with it. Photo events like WRD allow national government to sidestep its responsibilities and blame a gender. Similarly CJ sidesteps his responsibilities every time he sneers at a man he assumes to be a wife beater and does nothing else except ostracise him:

CJ, "Where I live White Ribbon Day is a non-event. However, my community is small enough that those few men who are violent towards women are easily identified and effectively ostracised."

It is that sort of selfish and judgemental "I'm alright, Jack and others can look out for themselves", along with sweeping problems under the carpet through doing nothing that has to be challenged.

The Missus hit the nail squarely on the head when she talked about the need for empowerment and not encouraging dependence and victim-hood. WRD has the wrong emphasis and the decision-makers who sign oaths (why don't the women sign too?) go back to doing whatever they were doing, feeling self-righteously proud they have done something whereas nothing has been achieved at all.

Suzie a fun list but most are about choice.
- Car mechanics tell you the truth. Sometimes because I and a lot of other men are more likely to have learned enough to spot the worst lies. If more women made the effort to learn more about cars mechanics would be less likely to try to con them.
- The world is your urinal. It's easier for me to duck behind a tree but I'm more likely to be arrested if someone see's me.
- Same work, more pay. Not in my workplace.
- Wrinkles add character. Probably but it depends on what you and those who's opinions matter to you value.
- People never stare at your chest when you're talking to them. Agreed but I also don't wear tops in my workplace which highlight my chest. I'm guessing that if I started to wear pants to work which exposed selected portions of my testicals (or even pushed bit's of my anatomy forward and up) I'd be stared at then booted out in a big hurry.
- The same hairstyle lasts for years, maybe decades. Again it depends on what you value. The pressures from peers may be different but it's still a choice.
- You only have to shave your face and neck. I don't have to, I choose to do so both for my own preferences and because my partner prefers it.
- You can play with toys all your life. Again a personal choice and it's still about what you value. Is playing with big boy toys all that different in essence to things women do which men often don't get.

There is truth to the list but there are missing items which could balance it. Life for all of us includes finding a balance between social pressures and our own preferences. I hope you posted the list in fun and I'm sorry that my response takes away from that but there are those who seem to take "male privilege" a bit to seriously.

R0bert

Pynchme again many of us have been calling for year to have the focus on gender taken out of anti-violence messages. That's not doing nothing it's trying to get a good starting place to move on.

"Right now all I see is self-justifying BS, very possibly from fellows who have attracted AVOs already. Abusers are well known for minimizing their responsibility for the damage they do."

I've never had an AVO/DVO taken out against me and from what I've read of them having one taken out is no proof that someone is the abuser. If anything on this thread indicates minimising responsibility it's the excuses for female violence listed in an earlier posts of yours. Calling for anti-violence messages to cover all violence (including male violence) hardly minimises responsibility, insisting that anti-violence messages be directed at the other gender may.

I doubt that many would want WRD stopped if the message was against all violence. I noticed CJ pointing out elsewhere that he would like to see a reduction in immigration to Australia but would not support a racially targetted campaign to do so. That pretty much sums up my feelings on this topic.

Can I assume that the excepts from the book which you have quoted are ones you agree with? If not would you please identify which ones you don't agree with?

If those findings reflect your views it would explain why you so rarely find male DV victims, you have defined them out of existance and assume when confronted with evidence that it's just a woman defending herself against a controlling male. If your behaviour here is an indicator you will make the assumption that the male is the abuser just trying to cover up his abuse. It's pretty hard to see the reality through those kinds of gender stereotypes.

R0bert

I just don't agree with generalizing a study of 130 or so too widely. I have known of a couple of exceptions. In one the woman had a serious psychosis and did some severe harm and in the other she went to great lengths to torment and control her husband. However, I don't even work in DV all the time and the number of abused women and their injuries - appalling. It makes me sick to see so much ranting here that these things should be hidden again. Also, the number of men trying to obtain an illness label to circumvent legal consequences of some serious damage inflicted by them on others is infuriating - a tremendous waste of resources.

R0bert I tried to restrict links to those that people could open without journal access. This one might be suitable. In any case; have a Google. About 20 years ago a researcher with a name something like Gandolfi developed a self report scale, which couples filled in and returned. He consistently found that regardless of how bad the injuries, male perpetrators always under stated the amount and extent of violence; while women tended to overstate theirs. Anyway, lots of research has been done since.

http://jeccourses.unm.edu/dv/resources/mod1/1_assultive.1.pdf

This is a much more eloquent and succinct account of salient issues than I'm capable of providing.

http://www.xyonline.net/content/secrets-and-lies-responding-attacks-domestic-violence-campaigns-2006

You might also note that statements by another DOTA adherent is mentioned in that essay. You might take the trouble to research other people contributing to that site.

Btw: Re: Cornflower's constant attacks on CJ - peer behaviour is in fact a recognized factor in encouraging or discouraging negative behaviours of all types including violence. Check the research

Pynchme, "peer behaviour is in fact a recognized (sic) factor in encouraging or discouraging negative behaviours of all types including violence"

What going one step further and applying that to the given example, or are you saying that contrary to all of the advice given on domestic violence and the WRD oath you favour people disregarding evidence of domestic violence and the solution is to simply send the suspected violator to Coventry, dust your hands and sit back?

Do you ever stop to read and think before you cut and paste or (more likely) do you just grab anything that vaguely looks like it might bolster your argument and hurl that at your 'opponent'? First one to the picket fence wins?

The only thing that will reduce violence against women in our society is when men collectively condemn it. It works very well in my small community, where men who bash their women are obviously disrespected by other men.

The only thing that will reduce violence generally in our society is when men collectively condemn it, with the support of women. This is because the vast majority of serious violence is perpetrated by men, despite the obfuscatory tactics deployed by some in this thread.

Anybody who would argue against a male-driven action like WRD - that is dedicated to eliminating violence against women - must be in denial about the heavily gendered nature of violence against women, not to mention interpersonal violence in our society in general.

Let's face it - men commit most of the serious violence, so it's up to men to speak out against it. The attacks on WRD and those men like me who deplore violence generally are very telling indeed.

Let's hope for an even bigger WRD next year :)

CJ

All ostracising suspected offenders does is makes things worse (the suspected offender and his family have more worries about being suddenly left out socially and being gossiped about), delay any necessary counselling/treatment and it could drive problems underground.

The suspected offender and the victim need people who care enough to offer support and suggest alternatives, while respecting their privacy and right to make their own decisions. Sometimes, just being the non-judgemental ear, the person who is there to support and will not reject or railroad (or isolate) is all that is needed to get the process going.

Ostracising ensures that assistance and any required treatment will not be forthcoming, until a catastrophic event occurs.

To take an example, you become aware that a friend is becoming very withdrawn and moody and you suspect the drought is making things difficult with the bank. Your partner comments that one of your friend's children told your daughter at school that her dad shoved her mum down stairs the previous pm.

According to what you have said already the immediate actions to take are to roundly condemn domestic violence (only way to stop it you say) and ensure that you and your mates immediately ostracise the s.o.b.

Frankly I cannot believe you could be so limited and insensitive. One things for sure though is that WRD has no solutions to offer.

What about getting some mates together locally and have a go at setting up a men's shed or something similar? You have the knowledge, skills and contacts. You also know you need to be proactive and take action personally and locally because government and activists (from both sides) have no answers only demands and it would be nothing short of tragic if another man suicides or takes out his depression, alcoholism or whatever on himself or his loved ones because no-one heard or notices his cries for help in advance. Wives and loved ones are welcome at men's sheds.

Try self empowerment, self help and bugger waiting for government.

Got any better ideas? Wait for the next WRD? -What would that do?

Suzeonline
Men are the violent ones? Well read this link

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/6535110/mum-encourages-daughter-to-assault-girl/

Now can we all just once and for all accept that violence is occurring at an ever increasing rate?

Can we all just address violence at all levels instead of the gender issue because young women and girls are becoming more violent than yound men and boys?

Something is seriously amiss with our society and the Governments are not helping and niether are we while we argue back and forwards on a gender based issue

Now what can we collectively do to lower this violence in society?

The start would be to begin with full equality and work with the children and for the children

It is a bit hard to change the past that being the older generations but if we all pull together maybe we can leave a society that is better enriched with equality and harmony for the children coming after us

Thanks for your time
Dave

CJ,

'men commit most of the serious violence, so it's up to men to speak out against it.'

Muslims commit most of the terrorist acts, so it's up to Muslims to speak out against terrorism?

R0bert,

Ever heard of a sense of humour?

Missus,

So men are dogs who need to be trained?;-)

pynchme,

What more do you want. I've already sacrificed all my principles to get behind WRD. Does it ever occur to you that men who object are just being contrary and don't like being manipulated by the raising awareness industry or emotionally blackmailed into apologising for their gender? I reject the men's 'oneinthree' campaign on the same grounds. I'm consistent. Do you support the 'oneinthree' lot, or do you have principled objections to anything they do?

Do you support all the men's rights groups because helping some men is more important than your principles or the group's actions and raising awareness tactics as a whole? I think it's up to women to stand up and be counted and denounce all women who falsely accuse men of violence in custody disputes. Only when women denounce this kind of manipulation can it be eradicated.

When I see some effort and thought expended in addressing the wider incidence of false accusations of violence, then I will feel more confidence in women's commitment (haven't even seen that yet) against this. Right now all I see is self-justifying BS, very possibly from women who have made false accusations of violence already. Manipulators of the system that is there to protect women are well known for minimizing their responsibility for the damage they do.

CJMorgan:"The only thing that will reduce violence against women in our society is when men collectively condemn it"

Men already collectively condemn it. Not a single poster here has said anything that indicates approval of violence directed at women.

Yet still men and women continue to suffer violence. Obviously your theory is fatally flawed.

Now off you toddle and do a bit more "shunning", or perhaps you could stand on the highway waving your pinky to show everyone what a big d!ck you are. Oops, no need, you live in a small community - everyone already knows.

Cornflower:"What about getting some mates together locally and have a go at setting up a men's shed or something similar?"

Very difficult to do without involvement from one of the churches or some other recognised community group. I have tried a couple of times and it is difficult to satisfy the funding bodies without a guaranteed "support base" such as churches can provide. The churches will rarely support an organisation which is avowedly secularist when they can set up their own version and proselytise within it.

As well, the churches have the infrastructure to provide counsellors, trainers, management staff, etc, which independent groups are often struggling with and which funding bodies look very favourably upon when assessing applications.

The huge success of Feminism has been in setting up the support and funding networks that they have. They give enormous power that is separate from any of the current institutions, yet exerts influence on them all. It's a truly impressive achievement.

Pynchme
"Womens violence seemed to be a form of resistance to being controlled or subdued. Mens violence seemed to intend to exert control and dominance."

So when a couple haver different opinions about an issue, the man is being controlling while the woman is resisting being controlled. Negative stereotyping of men isn't going to win too many men over.

There may well be men on OLO who have had AVOs taken out against them. I'm sure that there will be alot more men with AVOs wearing white ribbons. People who post here at least take the business of being ethical seriously, even if we have different ideas. Perhaps you would prefer the Facebook crowd, who join advocacy groups and go for token efforts like wearing white ribbons.

CJ
"The only thing that will reduce violence against women in our society is when men collectively condemn it."

Pressure from others can help, but it is far from the only thing that should be done. The data about violence from females shows that they have a big role in escilating most of these conflicts and therefore need to learn skills to deal with conflicts in other ways. Secondly, telling these blokes that its all there fault isn't going to make them listen as others attempt to discuss other ways that they could deal with these conflicts. Lastly, we need to make sure that the resolution of this conflict doesn't provide the seed for the next arguement. All of the legal advantages given to women cause more conflict than they stop IMHO.

Suze

Mechanics rip-off people who are professionals, because they don't think they are entitled to their money in the first place. Most feminists are professionals and are targeted for this reason, not their gender.

I think when there's attitudes like this to domestic violence against men it would be a good thing that violence against men be included in this WRD...

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9743#156832

'Big strong unfaithful Tiger is well able to look after himself and doesn't need all the women-haters of the world feeling sorry for him and his little wounds- poor baby!'

Outright ridicule of a man being attacked by a woman with a golf club.

Houellebecq,
<'men commit most of the serious violence, so it's up to men to speak out against it.'
Muslims commit most of the terrorist acts, so it's up to Muslims to speak out against terrorism?>
I agree with the point you’re trying to make but it’s a false analogy.

No right-thinking man would justify violence against women.
Real men would condemn it.
Perhaps that’s the point that CJ was trying to make.
However, men do not have the obligation to publicly repudiate violence against women because there is no doctrine of manhood which advocates it.

However, it is up to Muslims to speak out against terrorism because Islamic doctrine justifies terrorism (Koran 8:60).
In fact, Islamic doctrine justifies violence against women who disobey their husbands (Koran 4:34).
And there’s the bind.
The very few Muslims who do speak out against Islamic terrorism don’t have any Islamic doctrine to back them up, apart from decontextualised Koranic verses which have furthermore been abrogated by later verses.
Those few Muslims who do speak out are, in fact, heretics and it is not surprising that many of them live in fear of the threat which awaits Islamic apostates, as justified by the Koran.
Such brave ex-Muslim women include Wafa Sultan, Nonie Darwish, Ayaan Hirsi Ali et al.

You can watch Arab-American psychiatrist Wafa Sultan talking about the status of women in Islam at this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ough-e6ThWE

Condemning violence is one thing but condemning men and boys for violence against women is quite another and could have the reverse effect. Besides, generalising criticism and censure is unwarranted and unfair and could have the opposite effect, sending possible offenders underground.

Think for a minute, it is already known that some women abuse and neglect children and it is difficult to get them, especially mothers, to come forward to get help. Women, particularly mothers, feel that their behaviour will not be understood and they will probably be shunned, especially by other women, if they were to come forward so they do not. It is also known that the incidence of child abuse and neglect is growing.

If we were to apply CJ's WRD 'logic' that condemnation is the 'only' way to treat violence (in this case child abuse and neglect), how many women could be expected to come forward proactively for support, counselling and treatment? More to the point, if we ostracised the women who admitted to the heinous, condemned crime of child abuse and neglect, how could that ever result in any improvement?

Child abuse and neglect, like domestic violence, is already illegal and only disturbed and troubled people might commit such acts. It is hard to see how the self-righteous signing of oaths and public condemnation from on high can help them to change and not offend.

Cornflower you're assuming that all abusers have depression and are incapable of speaking to their own preferred source of advice. Most abusers do not have depression or any other mental illness - well until charges are laid or the missus leaves, in which case they very often do become distraught and that's an appropriate time to offer assistance - which health professionals do.

I recall hearing a story from someone when I was a teenager about an extremely loud DV family. The neighbours found the noise distressing - and would wait until the abuser left the house to go over and complain about the noise to the haggard wife; asking her to keep it down. The man was greeted warily but was oblivious to any disapproval. She was isolated and very alone with the shame and 'disapproval'; he was still out seeing mates at work and unaware that anyone thought he was a thug (such as any might have).

Houellebecq: As a matter of fact I don't object to any service that assists men and especially any that they devise for themselves. The 1 in 3 - I can see some issues with the way the stats are presented but nevermind. If the campaign is helpful to men in distress I wouldn't dream of opposing it.

On the other hand, I am beginning to take issue with the various MRA that are viciously and deceitfully promoting one agenda only and that is to dismantle services that help women and children escape violence.

Houellebecq: Tiger Woods denies that it was a DV situation. I have seen a lot of females from DV situations do the same, as I am sure Suzie has as well. I have my misgivings about Tiger Woods claim that it isn't DV and if it is then of course it is inexcusable and she should be charged etc., but not much can be done if he doesn't want to pursue it.

One thing I'd like to also point to is this:
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/golf/tiger-in-the-rough-now-a-woman-called-grubbs-claims-she-had-affair-20091202-k4rp.html

I am really fed up with all these people who blab about affairs they have. Recently there was that politician who got poked in the nose by some blabbermouth's husband; and now people are coming out of the woodwork to say they bonked Tiger Woods. A lot of people commit indiscretions with various degrees of fond memories or regrets. If the blabbermouths were on the other end of it then they could at least have the decency to maintain discretion. I take it they are either getting paid a lot or it's sour grapes. Infidelity isn't a good thing, of course, but advertising it after the fact is very poor form.

"There may well be men on OLO who have had AVOs taken out against them."
Yeah I'm one,
But does it make any difference when the woman that applied for it lied, is able to be proven a liar, has had a DVO/AVO taken out on her which she has breached against her husband, also her own sister had a DVO/AVO taken out against my ex, her own mother appled for an AVO/DVO against my ex
Then this year my ex's mother applies for a DVO/AVO as she is supposed to be scared that I am going to attack her when I live 500 mile from her and in a different state and also uses lies to obtain it
The law is not stacked against man?
GIVE THE GENDER SHOW A MISS SHALL WE?
Thanks from Dave

pynchme,

regardless of whether Tiger was or wasn't attacked by his wife, how is Suze ridiculing him in the assumption that he was, all fine and dandy?

'On the other hand, I am beginning to take issue with the various MRA that are viciously and deceitfully promoting one agenda only and that is to dismantle services that help women and children escape violence.'

Please give examples, I don't know any MRAs sites. I've never visited one as I've never needed to. 100% of what they do is purely an aggressive act to dismantle services for women? I find that very hard to believe. All the men here seem to want is to be included in the WRD umbrella, and for society to care as much about violence against men, which good 'ol suze shows is something that attracts shame to the men abused.

Some of the men here are of the opinion that the WRD lot are 'viciously and deceitfully promoting one agenda' (among others) that men hold sole responsibility for all violent domestic disputes, that domestic violence should be discussed solely on an abuser-victim dichotomy, and that men as a gender are abusive by nature and are responsible for the actions of a few men.

So, how is it you're allowed to 'take issue' with MRA groups on principle, but when men take issue at WRD on principle, you label them abusers?

BTW: I hate the pay for juicy affair details industry too, but I've noticed it's always a man who is being 'outed' by a woman mistress. Do you think the women in power or with celebrity status don't have affairs, or just that nobody is interested if they do, or the men who they have affairs with value discretion?

pynchme:"I am beginning to take issue with the various MRA that are viciously and deceitfully promoting one agenda only and that is to dismantle services that help women and children escape violence."

Except that there are no such animals, it's all in your head. Talk about deceitful...

This discussion came about because I expressed a desire to see White Ribbon Day abandoned in favour of a more inclusive form of awareness-raising. so far, all of the men (except CJ and he doesn't really count as a man) have expressed a similar POV. All that is being expressed is a desire to decouple violence from the politico/ideological feminist agenda.

Violence is experienced by people of both genders. More men than women experience it. More boys than girls experience it. I don't believe your claim of professional expertise in this area, frankly. Your knowledge is patchy and informed bu ignorant adherence to ideology rather than rational consideration of the facts presented.

If you were genuinely interested in reducing violence against all people, especially children, you'd not be trying your constant efforts to derail the discussion.

Cotter, ditto for you. Trying to "speak from authority" only works when you disclose the source. Without it, you just look like a tryhard tit. My diagnosis for you is Narcissistic Personality Disorder, manifesting as delusions of grandeur. Adequacy would be a good first point of aim, as for so many of you 'net wouldbes.

Why do you and your sistas find the idea of inclusive anti-violence campaigns so threatening? Why should male victims of violence not have equivalent protection as a matter of course? None of you have even tried toadress that one. Is it too hard for you? I thought you were "professionals" (lmao)?

government is responsible for what happens in a nation, either by oversight or intervention.
with governance comprised of men's legislatures only, Australia is a patriarchy in which men have
claimed exclusive responsibility at law for all anti-social violence committed against anyone.
patriachy is inherently violent through an imbalance of power between its prinicpal
constituents, the greater the imbalance the more the violence.
governance which balances the powers of primary constituents eliminates anti-social violence.
law enacted by agreement between a women's legislature and a men's legislature balances
power between primary constituents.
the provision of a women's legislature eliminates anti-social violence.

I predict that White Ribbon Day will be back again next year, and that those sad souls who are in denial about male violence towards others will still be bleating about how dreadful women are.

Fortunately, they are in the minority in the real world, where less blinkered men and women know that males are overwhelmingly responsible for seriously violent acts against both men and women.

It would be nice to imagine a society where events like White Ribbon Day are redundant, but unfortunately we clearly have some way to go yet. Meanwhile, male-driven initiatives like WRD will continue to provide a venue where men can show solidarity with women in our efforts to eliminate violence against them.

Thanks CJ - well said.

Unity against violence.

pynchme:"Unity against violence."

So why have you spent the last 23 pages of this thread trying to accuse those who want a unified response of somehow hating women? Tell us again how "professional" you are, I could do with a good laugh.

CJMorgan:"males are overwhelmingly responsible for seriously violent acts against both men and women."

Just to reassure you, litlle fella, the vast majority of women and men never experience a seriously violent incident. Chances are you're perfectly safe from all of those men you're so scared of.

Feel better now?

Stil waiting for an answer to these:"Why do you and your sistas find the idea of inclusive anti-violence campaigns so threatening? Why should male victims of violence not have equivalent protection as a matter of course?"

Take your time, grrrls...

More lies from Antiseptic.

Being 182cm and over 100kg, I'm neither little nor afraid of men.

Do try and tell the truth, old chap.

a boss who combines 'don't bash a boss day' with 'don't bash an employee day' fails to distinguish between
the roles of boss and employee and would be required to relinquish the position of boss.

it is alleged Bureau of Statistics indicate that in "Australia one in two women will be physically assaulted
at some point in their lives and one in three women will be sexually assaulted. We also know that by the
time a girl turns 18 there is a one in four chance she will have experienced rape or another form of
sexual assault. To put that figure in context we also know that men in prison have a one in four chance of
being sexually assaulted, suggesting that when it comes to rape, what young women endure in their
everyday lives would for men be considered prison conditions".
http://2mf.net/news158.htm

For my take on it I predict that White Ribbon Day will be back again next year, and that those sad souls who don't care about violence against men will still be bleating about how dreadful men are.

At a guess they will be still be deliberately and falsly claiming those who want campaigns against all violence are somehow trying to cover up violence against women or to take away women's access to services. They will still be quoting stats and studies built on layers of feminist mantra and the assumption that men are inherently more controlling, more dishonest than women.

They will still be very quiet on explaining just why speaking out against all violence is so wrong. Some will get the problem with racially based campaigns but be deathly silent when it comes to explaining why gender based campigns are so much better.

R0bert

Anyone that denies depression is across this country denies the Senate Inquiry into the Forgotten Australians
That inquiry found that with all the Illegal removal and abuse of children, depression is now that widespread that it affects nearly all families of Australia
Heres another of the stories
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZrFF5Httho
Now can we leave the gender fight out of this show and get some collective ideas on how we are going to start to stop all violence and get rid of the alcohol and drug abuse from our society so people can concentrate on giving the children a better future
Many of the women argue it is not up to the women to stay home and raise the kids but I note that those same women use help for women and children so they are saying that the children should be with them
The men that want to argue that it is unforgivable to hurt a women are using the "weaker sex argument" then I don't think this would hold well with the Anti-Discrimination Act
NOW LETS JUST STOP VIOLENCE
Thanks from
Dave

CJ Morgan, It's obvious your not old enough to have grown up with or around the old Catholic Mafia, where the women were the ones who had a major role in whacking various threats to the organization. Don't think that your s$*t don't stink because I can smell you from here.

That crystal ball you own must give you insights into many more aspects of life than the rest of us, being able to predict white ribbon day next year & all because the only solidarity you are showing, is how to gang up on men & not to use your brain for an equitable outcome for good of 'man' & 'women' kind. I can see you must be so proud of what you teach children. Oh my, such an intelligent species.

CJMorgan:"I'm neither little nor afraid of men. "

And you shouldn't be, little fella, most men aren't violent in any way. Now take those elevator shoes off and stop trying so hard to puff up your chest little fella, no one's fooled, although I bet Mum thought you looked like a "real little man" when you did that, didn't she, bless 'er.

R0bert:"They will still be very quiet on explaining just why speaking out against all violence is so wrong."

As I noted earlier, the media response to WRD this year was very muted. After last year's debacle in which the WRD people, especially Flood, were caught out deliberately falsifying media reports to bolster their case there seems to be a great deal more scepticism, as there should be.

a couple of journalists, like Paul Sheehan, know which side their bread is buttered and made sure to write something to ensure their access to female Labour politicians continues, but otherwise there was very little.

In the firat post of this thread I mentioned a press release from the WRD people published by the C-M, which referred to "new figures" showing huge amounts of violenece and sexual assault against women (but not mentioning the 3-4 times as many male victims). We've still not been informed what those "figures" are or where they came from.

I think it's safe to assume they're another one of those figments of Michael Flood's fevered imagination. His stuff is as convincing as a Mills and Boon novel and even less realistic. It's even tailored to the same audience...

R0bert - nothing at all wrong with a campaign to eliminate all violence from our society. Why don't you get together with your mates and start one? If it looks like it's genuine and not a front to deflect attention from violence against women, I'll even join you.

BTW, your race analogy is a false one. Think about it.

Whistler

Please don't ever post hyperlinks to Nina Furnell articles again. She is a disgrace to every cause that she stands for.

CJ

Why doesn't the race analogy work? I cannot see any problem with the logic of Robert's argument.

a 'reduce disease day' would have no effect in reducing AIDS or breast cancer because these
diseases require targeted strategies to achieve reduction not a sole fix all strategy.
failure to target a strategy is a failure to deliver the message.
similarly, a 'reduce violence day' would have no effect in reducing violence perpetrated by a boss or
an employee because these forms of violence require targeted strategies to achieve reduction not a
sole fix all strategy.
failure to target a kind of violence is a failure to deliver a remedy.
a boss who advocates a 'reduce violence day' is shirking responsibility for violent behaviour by co-
blaming employees when employee violence is a difference kind of violence.
would you support a shirker or a person prepared to take responsibility for their behaviour?
a male in Australia who purports that women are not in a subordinate relationship with men is
committing a treason against the rule of law.

<a male in Australia who purports that women are not in a subordinate relationship with men is committing a treason against the rule of law.>
What can one say?
You've obviously had some negative experiences in your life to bring you to this point.
Please seek help.
You sound really unhappy.

Whistler thanks for the link. Good one.

R0bert, well that summation was inaccurate. CJ said long ago in the thread that if there was another campaign he's support it. I haven't said anything at all that supports violence towards anyone.

Just look back at the few pages: Antiseptic's usual nasty, belittling tone especially towards CJ and repeated untruths about WRB and Dr. Michael Flood; R0bert's shameless untruth; then HermanYutic inferring that Whistler is unbalanced in some way just for pointing out the truth about where formal power resides.

- and you people purport to say that your agenda (whatever it may be) is to stop violence against everyone ?

Where is the evidence of any of you able to contain your own behaviour and direct it in a constructive way. I wouldn't feel that my well-being was a matter of concern to any of you; why should anyone have confidence that any of you know how to be non-violent?

ignorance of the law is not a defence.
Australia's Constitution provides for men's legislatures only.
men boss over women in Australia, that's the law.
if you don't like patriarchy and can't handle its accompanying
responsibilities seek to provide a women's legislature.
but this constant whinging ...

Well the nature of the beast is that men who make out women to be victims are seeking to exert their power and dominance. Instill fear into women as they do, they have ready made weakened gender. Run around making victims out of everyone, except the westernised male, then the westernised male will remain dominant and in control.

That is exactly why some seem to support one agenda that appears at odds with the others they support.

It is why westernised men can never join the victim class as then they would lose their dominance. So no need to over analyse. If you are not a westernised, preferable white male, then you are a victim and you should live in fear of being oppressed, suppressed as everyone is bigoted, racist, misogynist, peodophile, xenophobic, redneck, out to get you.

If you are a white male or westernised male and have suffered abuse, get over it, the control freaks do not want to admit victim status in their own group as it will weaken them. They will instead make you out to be the perpetrators. Perpetrator status still better than pathetic victim status, is much better macho image.

The politics of fear work a treat. The westernised, primarily white male, works it like a fine art all the while making out to be Tarzan.

Noel Pearson knows it and is why he is against the victim industry surrounding Indigenous Australians. He gets it. It hands power to the very people who should have no right to it.

So women be scared little girls if you wish, but it will attract the very wrong sort of male into your universe. I guarantee it.

CJ Morgan "Being 182cm and over 100kg, I'm neither little nor afraid of men."

At 100kg you are the Michelin Man and morbidly obese. Very nearly 16 Stones! Take it easy with that breathless indignation.

Sheez, that could explain your relentless attention seeking.

CJ I don't get why you want seperate campaigns rather than opening up existing ones to speak against all violence. I think yet another set of campaigns would reduce the effectiveness all round. Far better to make it clear in what exists that the message is against all violence. The anti DV campaigns could achieve that by portraying some different scenario's - adding some male victims, female abusers, some from same sex couples etc. Not a big shift in what's actually done but taking away the very deliberate attempts to hide DV where the victim is male.

I dread the idea of different anti-violence campaigns competing for the same resources(funds, celebrity and political support etc). It's easy to imagine organisers feeling the need to trump each other with more attention grabbing ads, press releases etc to get their message over. You don't need to join a new cause, rather join in trying get what's already there working to say that all violence is unacceptable. Seperate campaigns could very easily be counter productive and probably would hurt the overall message.

White ribbon day could so easily be a day were we all say NO to violence regardless of our own gender. Take the politics out of it and make it a stand against all violence.

I know the racism analogy is not perfect but I've spent time thinking about it and I don't see major flaws in the way I've used it. I'm willing to listen if there are clear reasons why it does not apply.

Pynchme, I really can't be bothered responding to your slurs and lies any more. Maybe another day.

R0bert

hands up all those blokes here who support Reclaim the Night ... *

Well put ROBert & the very reason I talk about equity & equality. If there were groups fighting for funding of the same thing but of different genders, it would just highlight the fact's most of us are discussing here. Your statement highlights the one sided debate that white ribbon day is actually getting across, in it's simplistic, lovely, wonderfully sweet, nasty Jesuit style of psychological suggestion. Pretension & nasty back biting in the nicest way to get what they want in the legal circles & destroying children's, men's & others associated with them lives at the same time, does not support the economy the way government's make out, it's just a religious belief & a measure to create social disorder.

A [Belief] is an empty thought with an image from the imagination projected by the brain but a thought is an image with evidential fact's which our eyes see & tell the brain. God is a belief & so are half the religious policies that go with it.

"the same thing but of different genders"
oxymoron [(ok-see-mawr-on)]
A rhetorical device in which two seemingly contradictory words are used together for effect:
“She is just a poor little rich girl.”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/oxymoron

Have to agree with Athiestno1, Well put RObert.

Now it seems very much that most violence is associated with the use of alcohol, then wouldn't it be advisable to cut the time that pubs opened? What was wrong with the 10am to 10pm?
Offences committed under the influence of alcohol should not be able to use alcohol as a mitigating circumstance, as it is self infliction and the onus should be put back on the user to do so with responsibility.
Anyone found supplying alcohol to a person under the age of 18 should be prosecuted with a stay in gaol, ie 6 months or at very least 3-400hrs community service hours as it is up to the adults to start to show a bit of responsibility to children and young people
If it is shown that certain places have higher instances of violence related to alcohol use then make them "dry" areas the same as the indigenous communities,
Stop all the advertising of alcohol the same as they did with tobacco

Well this could be a start, any other suggestions?

Thanks from
Dave

I do not agree you should punish everyone for the sins of a few.

I would like parents to understand that addiction to sugar in children will make it easer for alcohol addiction to take hold. Some suggest that it is actually sugar addiction in many problem drinkers these days. Same as caffiene. If a scotch and coke drinker took the coke out it would they still drink so much?

Plus money, I rember we snuck a few drinks when I was young but had no money to support binge drinking episodes.

the distribution of funding between women and men is problematic when there is an imbalance of
power between women and men, as with the provision of men's legislatures only.
women and men compete inequitably for funding.
men insecure about being men feel their privilege threatened, although the vast majority of men are
comfortable being men and have no problem with the distribution of funding to women.
with law enacted by agreement between a women's legislature and a men's legislature power is
balanced and women and men cooperate in the distribution of funding.
insecure men are comforted by the detachment from responsibility over women and the consequent
reinforcement of their status.

The Missus:"women be scared little girls if you wish, but it will attract the very wrong sort of male into your universe. I guarantee it"

Not to mention the wrong sort of "female".

As long as some are prepared to hand control over their lives to others then there will be some who seek to use that control to suit themselves. Making the issue of violence gendered is one way of ensuring that there is a strongly-gendered political base which can be easily manipulated without having to take any other considerations into account.

In an individual we call such an inability to see shades of grey combined with an absolutist "with me or against me" attitude to others "Borderline Personality Disorder". In Feminist political activists we call it "normal"... As you said, the politics of fear works a treat.

R0bert:"White ribbon day could so easily be a day were we all say NO to violence regardless of our own gender. Take the politics out of it and make it a stand against all violence."

Yes, it could, but will it? There is a massive industry dependent on Government funding which will fight tooth and nail to stop their gravy-train being derailed. Let's face it, what on Earth would someone like Flood or Elspeth McInnes or Dale Bagshaw (the list just goes on and on and on) or even pynchme do if they had to do something productive for a living instead of simply making stuff up? The answer of course, is that they will do whatever it takes to avoid having to find out.

So what if a few kids have to suffer abuse at the hands of their Mum, as long as that next grant cheque comes in? After all, the end justifies the means...

dwg, I'm in favour of reducing opening hours, but I suspect that in the context of family violence the plethora of bottle shops in shopping centres is more influential. Some of them are now open at 9am, just in time for Mum to get rid of the kids...

While a non-gender specific anti-violence campaign is a good idea, particularly in view of the increase in violence late at night (largely fuelled by alcohol consumption) I would still like to see the domestic violence campaign continue in it's own right. Whether or not these sorts of campaigns achieve their goal (other than providing a number to call), is a different argument.

The factors and psychology of domestic violence are very different from those of street, criminal and gang violence. There is no reason to exclude male victims of domestic violence in a WRD campaign even if statistics show that women make up the majority of victims. I don't know enough about the psychology of DV and whether the issues are different for men or women.

There may be a case for two separate campaigns, but governments do tend to spend money where there is the greater need and the most noise. If you want something sometimes it means making more noise and bringing issues out into the open.

Either way, those experiencing domestic violence should be able to seek assistance and support in removing themselves from the situation (with chidlren if present). The trouble is always in evidence and proving the risk of returning children to an abuser, given that our society is so hung up on adult rights with very little regard to the safety and needs (or wants) of children.

pelican, "The trouble is always in evidence and proving the risk of returning children to an abuser, given that our society is so hung up on adult rights with very little regard to the safety and needs (or wants) of children."

A convincing case for not separating child sex abuse from the broad child abuse and neglect.

'Posted by whistler, Friday, 4 December 2009 4:11:34 PM'

Whistler, when your finished dribbling, make sure the nurse changes your nappy as well, it's really starting to stink.

men say such loving things when they want to kiss you.

Oi whistler; lovely display isn't it. tch

R0bert, a slur is in the eye of the beholder.

I don't tell lies but can make mistakes of course. Show me what I've said that you believe is a lie and I'll respond with either evidence or an apology; whichever is appropriate.

Pynchme, I find it absolutely hilarious how innocent you make yourself out to be. I could almost imagine you & wishler being an item because your fantasy's have even included me now.