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.