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)?