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.