'septic, you have no idea whether the female posters to this site are middle-class or have been victims of domestic violence or not.
Trust me, you will be the last one to find out too.

Now that your archaic views of women are being successfully challenged, you resort to name-calling and questioning the professional integrity of some of the contributers.
All that does is serve to put yourself down as you are obviously seriously lacking in self esteem. Sad really.

Pelican, you made some very good points, but I agree there really is no point arguing with men like 'septic.
However, sometimes I just can't hold myself back!

Pelican:"You are the one that promulgates the negative view of women without ever acknowledging that men also perpetrate violence, abuse or neglect"

Don't be stupid. The links I posted are population statistics, not male or female ones. I pointed out, in response to the OP's questions, the relevant figures, which happen to show women in a much worse light than some here would like to acknowledge. These are the latest and most comprehensive figures available, drawing on sources from police to DOCS to hospital records and more. They are not anecdotes like silly Suzie prefers

Not one respondent has tried to argue the facts except pynchme, but she tried to shift the debate back onto the 60's, when the data better fitted her sense of victimhood.

The facts are really quite simple: a child born to aboriginal parents is 7 times as likely as other children to experience abuse or neglect, while a child living with a single mother is 6 times as likely to do so as a child living with both parents.

Noone has taken up my question: if the aboriginal situation warranted the drastic intervention we have seen in the NT, does the plight of children of single mothers not warrant similar drastic measures, given the similarity in the hazard presented? If not, why not?

As for "middle class princesses", I stand by the term. Years of preferential treatment have created a class of people who believe the world owes them luxury, not just a living. I have little respect for their view.

Pelican:"you are the male version of the hairy armpit stereotype."

Interesting POV, but quite wrong. My views, despite the weak-minded efforts to paint them as misogynist, are entirely egalitarian as opposed to the rather twisted form of Trotskyism embraced by the Feministas.

At least you acknowledge the inherent misandry in the feminist position.

Suzeonline:"you have no idea whether the female posters to this site are middle-class"

I just got confirmation, hon.

See a lot of cops attending the neighbours' places in the 'burbs, do you? Thought not...

Henyak
What I like about modern domestic violence services is that there is advice and support for women, men and children who experience violence and the approach is more holistic (or should that be wholistic); support for families as a whole.

While most DV services acknowledge that women and children are at most risk, the paramount concern is the safety of children first in all cases regardless of the gender of the perpetrator.

With the exception of those who wish to paint women or men as all-evil without looking within at their own baggage, it is heartening to know that most people who actually work in the area of DV perceive the violence as the issue first and foremost and are there to provide support, education, counselling and practical support as required.

If it were me, I would make up with your wife - forget gender competition; there is enough divisiveness in the world as it is - what is needed is more love.

Get off that couch and be nice to your wife. :)

Ok 'septic 'hon', you've found me out! What a clever little fellow you are.
Now let me guess about your' surrounding neighbourhood.....I was thinking maybe a single men's quarters in the middle of a male-dominated mining camp?

Your nasty words about single mother households being cesspools of child neglect need some response.

Much of the neglect and physical/sexual abuse in single mother households is caused by their boyfriends.
Many disgusting paedophiles look at single mother households as easy pickings.

I have no doubt that if children were placed more often with their Fathers (or if Fathers agreed to have custody of them more often)
there would be at least as much abuse, if not more.

Single parenting for either gender is a very lonely, frustrating job.
This situation can often lead to frayed tempers and unfortunately, lashing out at children.

Much more support is needed in these households, not condemnation.

Ah true to form. A woman does something bad, why, she just needs more help. When it's a man, well, the bastard should be locked up or denied any access to the kids.

Men are abusive by nature, but when a woman abuses, it's due to alcohol problems, loneliness, mental illness, the father not being around.

'As to neglect, that is linked to poverty and other variables. I have read that drug use is another factor in many cases. In general, children might be better housed, clothed and fed if more fathers contributed financial support.'

Yes yes there are as many excuses as there are colours of the rainbow when a woman does anything wrong. The most useful is to blame the father.

It's so simple isn't it. Man abuses, needs to be locked up or taken away from his victims. It's just a simple case of men acting their gender. Woman abuses, it's the father's fault or she needs more help.

It's just not like women to abuse, we must find lots of extenuating circumstances to protect our notions about women being incapable of doing stuff like that. It's not in their nature.

Suzeonline:"Much of the neglect and physical/sexual abuse in single mother households is caused by their boyfriends.
Many disgusting paedophiles look at single mother households as easy pickings. "

Oh, of course, Mum would never hurt the kids, it's just that Dennis Ferguson gets out a lot... Silly Suzie.

Check figure 2.2 and table A1.6 in this report http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/index.cfm/title/10859. That report is a compilation of all the available data from all the States and Territories relating to allegaed and substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect as of this year.
The authors of the report offer the following disclaimer with respect to violence against children by single-mothers:"There is likely to be a number of reasons for the over-representation of single parent—female families in substantiations. For instance, lone parents are more likely to have low incomes and be financially stressed (Saunders & Adelman 2006) and suffer from social isolation (Loman 2006; Saunders & Adelman 2006)
—all factors that have been associated with child abuse and neglect (Coohey 1996)."

Strangely, they don't mention paedophile boyfriends anywhere. They're obviously just misogynists, eh?

I don't buy any of it. There is no reason for a woman, single or not, to remain in poverty today, with all of the State and charity assistance thrown at her, not to mention the money she gets from Dad. If she prioritises social life over the welfare of the kids, it is not anyone's choice but hers.

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mediareleasesbyReleaseDate/7B5474B6858E05C3CA2573B5000DAB4E?OpenDocument

I quote:"There were 441,400 women not in the labour force who wanted a job and who were available to take up work but were not looking, according to figures released today by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS)."

Poverty? What "poverty"? Try "laziness" or a sense of entitlement to a free ride...

[cont]