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