I happened to be reading Charles Waterstreet's column in the SMH this morning, something I don't rush too, since Mr waterstreet has a notable gift for the trivialities. He described a scene at an art exhibition opening he attended:

"The evening finished with a two-fisted display of the women's art of boxing the ears of her boyfriend. He received an ambiguous text during a scrumptious dinner. Each blow to the face came from a hand launched from behind her hipline with a thud. He sounded very proper and polite, a neatly suited man in his 20s with bright green eyes and a strong jaw. Stating over and over, ''It was nothing, she was a friend.'' Slap. Slap. Slap. He stood with his arms by his sides, like a soldier taking it like a man should, murmuring, ''It's nothing. She's nobody.'' Twenty slaps, like rolling thunder."

Apparently the artist was affronted:
"Cullen, himself unsteady on his feet after a photographic session, intervened. Stop it. Stop it now."

Nobody called the police. Nobody called her a "man-basher" or "violent". There was no rush of willing hands stepping in to protect her victim. Waterstreet himself seems ambivalent:
"Until the biff, she was an engaging girl with blazing features and amazing blonde hair."

I wonder what would have happened if the man had simply grabbed one of her wrists roughly as she was taking her best shot? What if he'd actually retaliated with a slap of his own? Assault charges, I suspect.

Is violence directed toward men by women really such an entrenched part of our society that nobody pays it any attention?

often our minds cant concieve the doing
of what we know would end it

doing nuthin..is then the wise option
no one should hit anyone..for any reason

but heck who but a very weak person
hits anyone..not hitting them back

i guess i would simply have walked away..from watching it
not sure what i could do..if it was happening to me not you

[but luckely its not likely to happen to either of us
[but if it did..we would both likely..do nuthing too]

is this threat about woman hitting men
or anyone hitting other

or us loving to gossip..about what we heard
or just..a way to talk about somethings
we couldnt discuss..any other way

anyhow im watching
for now

Someone should have done the bloke a favour and called the police. Who's more the coward? Her, or the people watching and doing nothing?

Assault is assault. Imagine what he gets in private if that's a public display. That was THE opportunity to potentially save someone's life. Either his, or hers.

We have a duty of care for each other. Moral AND spiritual.

Antiseptic, move over make way on the naughty boys bench for me.
I agree todays young wife quite often hits kicks and bashes her husband, yes not all, but many.
Bossing men around, trying to make them just gay enough, gee it needed to be said.
One recently, mistaking her huge big body, over eating/gluttony not any thing else, for stenth,flogs her husband often.
As a white ribbon pledged member we need equality for bashed men.

White ribbon isn't for men. They'll tell you that.

"Boys and men are most at risk of physical harm, injury and death
from other boys and men, but small numbers are
subject to violence by women.
This kit focuses on the prevention of violence
against women and takes for granted that all
forms of violence are unacceptable and supports
efforts to end it."

All heart eh...

Awwwwww, the poor dear.

"Each blow to the face came from a hand launched from behind her hipline with a thud."

Being slapped by his lady.

I speculate that his crime was the oldest in the book, hence his protests...

"It was nothing, she was a friend."

Yeah, we all know what that means.

Sounds like he took his punishment like a man, though.

"He stood with his arms by his sides, like a soldier..."

It's all you can do, when you know you are in the wrong. Suck it up.

But it wasn't all bad, I suspect. If she had been really mad at him, she would simply have walked away, leaving a parting shot for the gallery along the lines that the other woman was welcome to him, as she was fed up having to get out the magnifying glass every time...

They probably had great make-up sex later.

...and there you go. His fault, not hers. Because he didn't drop her on the spot he's guilty as accused? Bravo. You're a star.

I was impressed by this man's patience with the 'bashing' he was getting from his 'it's nothing, she's nobody'lady.
I'm not sure if I would have been as stoic. Maybe it was because she meant nothing to him?

Had it been him 'bashing' her, she wouldn't have been able to walk away from it. An ambulance would have taken her to hospital...

Why don't all you boys get yourself another colour 'ribbon day'?
Let's see how many would join...

What a disgusting slurry of comments.

"...she meant nothing to him?"

"Had it been him 'bashing' her..."

"Let's see how many would join..."

You've got no idea eh?

The truth hurts StG.

Why don't you gather a posse of men together to work out your' own Violence Against Men's Ribbon Day then StG?

Maybe then you would all stop whinging about the White Ribbon Day supporters who only want to do something about violence against women.

There is nothing wrong with that...

yep, you knew it was coming St G ,me too.
Touch on any problem, some women have and stand by for the insults.
We, thankfully left the Friday night flogging the wife, some wifes some husbands behind.
We have grown.
But any domestic violence is wrong.
Men are not the only perpetrators.
Why do we ignore that?
In an age of equality men stand aside for women are expected to have good manners.
In return some women including middle aged , expect it demand it and never return it.
I note increasing street violence by young women.
Increasing harsh male bashed by women story's.
I wear the white ribbon with pride.
Never! the yellow back bone of neglecting the truth, because it is not PC to see some women are as bad/worthless as some men.

Pericles, it's your view that because he had received this text he "deserved it". However, none of the domestic violence laws in any of the states, or the Family Law act accepts that such provocation is in fact justified. I could come home and find my wife in flagrante delicto with you, but I am not allowed to raise a finger to either of you.

What if it had been her who received the "ambiguous text" and he had been slapping her? Would you have considered that a reasonable thing to do? Why?

StG, you obvioulsy grasp the point I'm making. The double standatd around violence, as exemplified by Perocles and one of the crow chorus is what leads to these sorts of situations and in the end leads to someone getting seriously hurt. There would have been outrage from the assembled guests if he had eventually responded and given her a good whack across the face in return. She would have turned on the waterworks and nobody would remeber that he stood there and took 20 blows before responding just once.

Belly, I had a feeling you'd agree. You're a pretty honest bloke.

Suseonline, this thread is about a documented case of abuse by a woman against a man. I'll put you down as one of the sista-girls cheering "you go girl" with every blow landed. Somehow, I'm not surprised,

What intrigues me, Belly, is the thought process of some - Suze being the obvious one on here - that men almost deserve violence against them when it happens. Or when it does it's obviously his fault.

Really, I think some jilted feminists see it as some sort of cosmic payback for violence against women perpetrated by men.

I hope it doesn't happen to someone they care about and just stays happening to people that 'deserve' it. Or maybe they'll tell their son to 'suck it up boy, really, it's probably your fault anyway'.

Antiseptic,

We were tapping away at the same time. Agreed. The attitude is horrifying.

Unfortunately Suzie is right with "Let's see how many would join...". We are not likely to get much support for a violence against men day or campaign, too many still support violence against men or don't think it matters.

Violence is still far to widely accepted, from the idiot's calling to "bring back the biff" in footy, the culture that enjoy's a good brawl (mostly between guy's but even more entertaining if a couple of girls are fighting) to those women who think it's their right to hit a man if he bothers them (and is close enough to hit). It includes advertisers who portray violence against men as funny or play on the "he deserved it mentality".

Enough of us have been presenting very clear evidence on the frequency of violence against men in DV situations for a long time yet some still cling to the precious belief that DV is a male thing or that it does not matter when women do it (or better still assume that any male pointing out that DV is not significantly gendered is just attacking women).

R0bert

I quite agree, Antiseptic.

>>Pericles, it's your view that because he had received this text he "deserved it". However, none of the domestic violence laws in any of the states, or the Family Law act accepts that such provocation is in fact justified.<<

The bloke would have had every legal right to get the police involved, and have his lady arrested.

I was simply observing that in these matters, context is everything, and surmising - surmising, only - that the reason that he stood and took his punishment was because a) he knew he was in the wrong and b) that calling the police would be a substantial overreaction.

I could be entirely wrong in my cursory analysis, and the lady could have been a vicious, vindictive, cruel, brutal psychopath, using any flimsy excuse to exercise her mysandry in physical form. In which case, the bloke was an idiot to take it unnecessarily, and should have grabbed her hands.

Somehow, I suspect not. The scenario says to me that this was simply the act of someone who felt very hurt, and let her emotions out on someone physically stronger. I also suspect, by the way, that by standing there unflinchingly he momentarily enraged her even further, which added fuel to the "red mist", but allowed the emotion to burn out more quickly.

But hey, what do I know?

Pericles, a false dichotomy is no argument. Moreover, the issue is not with her motivation, but with her actins based on whatever motivation she may have had, as well as the actions of those watching. Do you think the police would have been called by someone if it had been him slapping her? I have no doubt whatever that they would. Do you think that she would have slapped him if she thought it was regarded as reasonable for him to defend himself? Once again, I have little doubt that her hand would have been stayed.

As for his motication is not responding, I suggest that it is much more to do woth the fear of consequence should he do so than any sense of "being in the wrong". I would run away before I defended myself against such an assault, simply because the law makes me unable to do aso without risking being charged with assault.

Essentially, men are required to exercise control and women are assumed to be unable to do so. Men are treated like adults and women are treated like children.

R0bert, I don't want any special recognition of female violence against males, all I want is the dishonesty and double standards to be removed from the subject.

Australia is about to spend $80 million on an "awareness campaign" and a legal reformation program designed to make laws around vilence against women and the industry organisations more closely linked nationally. There is no plan to do anything to address the issue of female violence in any form.

For goodness sake, I think this is a total over-reaction to a silly scenario where we don't even know the whole story !

I abhor violence of any sort, and believe that we should have a more substantial penalty for any violence against our fellow human beings.

What I don't understand is this constant carry on about violence against men by women, which everyone agrees DOES happen, when the vast majority of violence is perpetrated by men against men and women?

Why aren't all you men up in arms about the violence men perpetrate against men, which is considerable? Why are you concentrating on the few cases of real violence of women against men?

We all know women can be vicious, and they should and are punished just as severely as men are.

Again I say, start a 'men against ALL violence' campaign, and then maybe I will believe this isn't just another boring anti-female rant.

I just did a google search with the terms "violence in australia"

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=violence+in+australia&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=QLR&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB%3Aofficial&source=hp&q=violence+in+australia&pbx=1&oq=violence+in+australia&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=s&gs_upl=0l0l0l198152l0l0l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=6832932f06d4e48&biw=1671&bih=947

The search returned a link to an organisation called "Enough is Enough", which I've never heard of, but I've learnt is devoted to a broad-based anti-violence campaign motivated by the founder losing his son to a violent armed robbery. It also returned a link to an AIC report from 1988 on the subject.

Apart from those two references, the rest of the top 20 responses were all to do with domestic violence, nearly all of those to do with domestic violence directed at women, including several linking to advocacy organisations. In other words, a quick google search on the genreal subject returns a highly gendered view of the subject, probably reflecting the massive imbalance in funding available to groups based on the gender of those they purport to serve. Interestingly, the WRD campaign was not represented on the first two pages, probably reflecting the complete lack of credibility the group has managed to attain through deliberate misrepresentation of otherwise reputable data.

As the prevalence of domestic violence is about 1/4 the prevalence of violence directed at men (ABS Personal Safety Survey), I'm quite appalled at the obvious lack of any commitment to address the issue of violence directed at men, which has lead to the display that Waterstreet mentioned. I'm also appalled that nobody sees fit to mention the role that escalation plays in domestic violence. If the man had been less "impressive" to susie and pericles for "taking it like a man" but had retaliated, who would have been at fault?

Pretending that black is white does not lead to any better understanding of a complex chess problem, as any child could tell you. Pretending that women are always as pure as the driven snow doesn't lead to a better understanding of the dynamics that lead to people being injured through violence, no matter how hoarse Suze's voice gets shouting encouragement to the "sista-girls".

We need a better commitment to a genuinely balanced approach from our lawmakers and academics.

I should have mentioned that the link to the Enough is Enough website is a paid ad, it doesn't appear thanks to search rankings...

You're a puzzle, Antiseptic.

>>Pericles, a false dichotomy is no argument<<

Far from insisting this is an "either/or" situation, I am suggesting that it is impossible to make black-and-white judgements based only upon your interpretation of what went on.

>>...the issue is not with her motivation<<

Why on earth not? It is not as if she is beating the crap out of him with an iron bar. She is simply reacting (in my view) to a humiliation, and is offering an appropriate and measured response, as the Geneva Convention might describe it.

Another detail we lack, of course, is their relative sizes/strength. If she were an Amazon, and he a nine-stone weakling, I might have more sympathy with your judgement. But from the little detail we have, he was clearly physically strong.

>>Do you think the police would have been called by someone if it had been him slapping her? I have no doubt whatever that they would.<<

Irrelevant. We are talking about a man being slapped by a woman. A physically weaker person using a mild form of violence on a grown man. Hold the front page. Dog bites man.

>>Do you think that she would have slapped him if she thought it was regarded as reasonable for him to defend himself?<<

Let's think about that for a moment, from a purely human perspective. Forget the "reasonable for him to defend himself" bit. Think "is he likely to hit me back?" It appears she knew him well enough to know that he was not the type to smack a lady.

But this is a worry:

>>I would run away before I defended myself against such an assault, simply because the law makes me unable to do aso without risking being charged with assault.<<

So, you'd hit a woman, if the law allowed it?

That's pathetic.

Pericles:"t is not as if she is beating the crap out of him with an iron bar. She is simply reacting (in my view) to a humiliation, and is offering an appropriate and measured response, as the Geneva Convention might describe it."

So where is the line drawn? If I suspect my wife is having an affair, is it reasonable for me to hit her 20 times? After all, I'm "simply reacting to a humiliation"...

No more false dichotomies, please.

Pericles:"Forget the "reasonable for him to defend himself" bit. Think "is he likely to hit me back?" It appears she knew him well enough to know that he was not the type to smack a lady."

So your defense of her is based not just on the idea that it's reasonable for a woman to hit a man, but that it's even more reasonable if she knows she can get away with it? Nice, I wonder how far you'd be prepared to extend that line of reasoning? For example, if I caught you with my wife, would I be entitled to beat you both? After all, I'm "humiliated".

You make it all clear in your last little bon mot:

">>I would run away before I defended myself against such an assault, simply because the law makes me unable to do aso without risking being charged with assault.<<

So, you'd hit a woman, if the law allowed it?

That's pathetic."

In your view, it seems it's unconscionable for a man to defend himself against a woman.

In other words, you agree that

"men are required to exercise control and women are assumed to be unable to do so. Men are treated like adults and women are treated like children."

Why didn't you just say so?

Sorry but while I have no intentions yet I would under some circumstances hit a woman laws or not.
At my birth women could be considered property, not all but most.
We have come far, grown, but now like it or not some act like men.
Men, huge strong men, are bashed, harsh hard, damaging, hands by their side.
It is equally dreadful.
EQUALITY.
What only in some things, ok for some true tramp to bust a man but wrong if it is the other way around.
A woman who is immensely over weight, unhappy,and well unpleasant, has adopted a man like attitude.
Harsh as any trucker she pulverizes her man, trys it with every man.
If she did with me? you betcha.
No human being should ever be bashed .
I have a special place for both male and females who miss use the relation ship with the partner they abuse, not a nice place.

You still don't seem to get it, Antiseptic.

>>If I suspect my wife is having an affair, is it reasonable for me to hit her 20 times?<<

No. You are a man. She is a woman. Men do not hit women. It's part of men being men and women being women.

Is she "entitled" to hit her man? No, of course not.

But if she does, since it it is likely to cause less damage than a man hitting a woman, it is less likely to cause offence. Which goes to proportionality, which goes to context.

Is the man "entitled" to go to the police? Yes, of course he is.

But if he does, it is likely to be treated less seriously than a man hitting a woman. That also speaks to proportionality, relative harm and social acceptance.

>>So your defense of her is based...<<

This isn't a "defence" of anyone. I'm just trying to bring a little everyday, common sense into the situation, while you are calling for lawyers at ten paces.

>>...if I caught you with my wife, would I be entitled to beat you both?<<

Let's keep this discussion away from fantasy if we can, shall we?

>>In your view, it seems it's unconscionable for a man to defend himself against a woman.<<

Not at all. I did in fact say that if the guy in the example felt unfairly treated, he could have caught her hands, and stopped the assault. I did not, however, say that it would be correct behaviour to get into a bar-room brawl with the lady. Most unseemly.

>>In other words, you agree that "men are required to exercise control and women are assumed to be unable to do so"<<

[sigh]

No. (Incidentally, who am I supposed to be agreeing with?).

Both men and women are required to exercise control in a civilized society. However, there is a different level of social acceptance in the situations where i) a woman slaps a man and ii) a man slaps a woman.

Which part of that do you have a problem with?

Pericles:"there is a different level of social acceptance in the situations where i) a woman slaps a man and ii) a man slaps a woman.ericles:"there is a different level of social acceptance in the situations where i) a woman slaps a man and ii) a man slaps a woman."

Why? Never mind any nonsense about proportionality. What is the proximal reason?

Pericles, you are doing a marvelous job at making Antiseptic's pathetic argument about male/female violence seem ridiculous.

However, you will never change his mind about women being the main problem in all situations on earth!

They are even at fault if men beat the c##p out of other men ... sigh.

Belly, I would have thought you were a better man than to say you would hit a woman, overweight or not.

I feel sorry for men who feel so angry at all women that they can't see the wood for the trees.

Thank goodness there are plenty of fine men around that DO see good in plenty of women.

So tell me Suse, why should a woman be allowed to hit a man, but the man not allowed to respond?

Take your time....

Because the law says you can't Antiseptic...

Actually Susie, the law says you can't hit me and I can't hit you, but the practise is different, as Mr Waterstreet's little observation showed.

Asimov said that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Why do we expect women to use it and demand that men should never do so? don't give me any nonsense about proportionality, or circular arguments, or non-sequiturs or any of the rest of the guff designed to prevent any uncomfortable thoughts crossing your mind.

Come out and say it: women are not regarded as being able to control themselves and men are, therefore, it's expected that women will hit men when angry and it's expected that men will be able to restrain themselves from hitting back.

You can actually hit someone, as long as your response to their assault is proportional to the situation and only enough to stop the assault. You can also elevate your level of force until you get the desired result.

The problem with women assaulting men and our conditioned response - or lack thereof as highlighted in the OP and some responses in here - is a social one.

Come on! some reality here please.
Not every woman is a Goddess, increasingly some as seen here demand a special value be put on being female.
That pedestal, under the feet of some real life trash.
Just because they are woman.
My first few hard fist fights, lost every one, happened in defense of a woman, at age 13.
After some time I won.
And the bashings ended.
Latter age about 17 I watched a public drunken flogging begin, in a beer garden.
And stopped it, it was becoming free entertainment, an excepted thing.
Women do naturally control some things in a relationship, we men except it.
But why?
How can any female for any reason always blame the man?
WHY do men have to except bashings.
The fat oppressor of men is no Lady, tell me, if she was bashing a woman, if the only way I could stop her was hitting her? she would be both hit, then helped to her feet.
Why do feminists both demand equality/total rule and special treatment?
Increasingly women want to be in control and it is just as wrong as it is for a man for any one to hit anyone.
Anti it seems your past posts are unfairly,being used against you here.
At a time both sex's are less likely to be faithful in equal numbers reality can not be hidden, females,some, demand both freedom to act like men, and the pedestal.

StG, I agree that we have a social taboo against male violence and none against female violence, especially female violence directed at men, for which pericles provides a very good apologetic.

My concern is still with the reason for this social arrangement. In Pericles view it seems to be hangover of the quaintly Victorian patriarchal notion that women are simply not as competent as men. I suspect he's right. However, in our society that particular notion is not merely dispensed with, it is positively legislated against, with it's own special Commission to enforce the legislation.

However, in much of the legislation around affirmative action and other gender-based policies, the implicit assumption is that women could not succeed without having special treatment, so perhaps the patriarchal sentiments that pericles annunciated are stronger than some women would like to believe?

As belly said:"Why do feminists both demand equality/total rule and special treatment?"

Because all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others...

one cannot 'hit' woman
but by the same equal measure
one cannot[must not]..hit upon any man neither

what is hitting..but an attempt to force compliance
[by threat become force]

so rule one is no hitting
and if hit to turn the other cheek
[and trust someone puts it on youtube]

then go to a lawer..and suer for damages
all parties concerned...[however remotely]

that said..i love hitting 'on'..woman
for each is a special godess..as much as i am offering them my god head

equals satying each iothers thirsts
in living loving joyfull weighing
each taking their turn..on top

oh lord..how i love to look upon thy face
[especially if its not the same sex as mine]
[your right girls...i wouldnt let one near me neither
but heck..dont it just feel right when its all right...ammoung equals

all hitting on
not hitting with

Antiseptic, there are all sorts of twists and turns to this.

There are strong social taboo's against men using pysical violence against women in our society in part because we are generally stronger, there seems to be plenty of evidence that women are generally more skilled verbally and better skilled at emotional ploy's yet there don't seem to be any taboo's against women using verbal or emotional violence against men by women.

I do think that there is an element of paternalism about it as well, women being entitled to special treatment because they are womeen.

We've rightly recognised that forcing someone to have sex is wrong even in the context of a monogamous relationship yet don't seem to have any prohibition against attempts various forms of coercion used to try to prevent or punish someone for having sex with another party. I happen to think that those in a relationship with a clear expectation on monogamy have responsibilities to the other party in both directions, but that's a different issue to the idea of being able to use threats or violence another person's sexual activity.

I don't believe that it's valid to assume that because we point out the double standards in this or try to get changes to the way violence against men by women is treated that we don't see any good in women, no more true than those campaigning against the reality that female victims of rape in some countries are punished could be accused of not seeing good in any men.

The situation facing a man with a violent spouse is a very difficult one, a Percilies pointed out the authorities are not likely to provide much support (and if he does take it to the police and the spouse lies guess who get's believed). Leaving may mean even greater harm with the potential loss of family and assets.

R0bert

Antiseptic, here's some salt for that chip on your shoulder.

>>In Pericles view it seems to be hangover of the quaintly Victorian patriarchal notion that women are simply not as competent as men.<<

Women, as has been observed over the centuries, have been physically less strong than men. That's across the board, not picking out individual women body-builders or seven-stone-weakling men who get sand kicked in their face. Probably because of this, and the natural tendency of males to protect their mates (and by definition their potential future progeny), the male has taken a more physical role in society.

You can check this out if you like. There is plenty of evidence. If you choose to describe that as a "quaintly Victorian patriarchal" attitude, that is your prerogative, but you are flying in the face of a great deal of history.

So, bringing ourselves up to date, it means that even today, men are expected to exercise greater restraint when they feel the urge to hit a women, than women are when they are driven by emotional hurt to take a swipe at their man.

That has nothing to do with "competence", that you allege, and everything to do with culture, upbringing and social mores.

Men do not hit women. Full stop.

Sometimes, women hit men. Live with it.

Feel free to witter on about how that is double standards, and the law should apply equally to men and women, and how you should be free to give your lady a whack whenever you feel like it.

But that's the way it is.

'women are not regarded as being able to control themselves and men are, therefore, it's expected that women will hit men when angry and it's expected that men will be able to restrain themselves from hitting back.'

Everyone loves those spirited euro chicks anti.

I don't think anyone would argue there isn't a double standard, but life is full of these little inconsistencies.

Sucks being a man sometimes, sucks being a woman too I assume. Who wants menstruation, they can have that! Though I do have breast envy. Must be fun getting free drinks just for being hot too.

I've been faced with a knife weilding drunken psycho partner and really felt the next day that it was somehow a black mark on me because I had been involved in... dun dun der! 'DOMestic VIOlence!'- That shameful male-perpetuated social phenomena.

I did grab her wrist and hear he yell 'don't you touch me'. Tried to leave the house and got my best jacket ripped in half, had the threats of her self harm if I left her in the house with all the knives. It's hell man.

It's tough being male and having the responsibility to stay in control in the heat of an emotionally charged dispute, and I wish the "don't blame the victim!" crowd would let it be discussed that if I wasn't such an alround good guy with an ability to keep my cool, I may have smashed her into the wall until her skull cracked. Now that wouldn't have been good for either of us.

She's lucky it was me.

Society should praise me rather than stigmatise me.

All I can do is try and be proud of my behaviour and courage under emotional turmoil (I find these things really rather upsetting, I'm quite delicate), but of course the stain of being a man in a violent domestic dispute will always be with me.

I cringe every White Ribbon day as if I have something to hide, but at least I'm in one piece not like all those dead chicks.

I think in the end anti, unless you're actually going to campaign or make positive action, you just have to let it go. Maybe you find it therapeutic, but you seem really unhappy. Like a kid saying life's not fair.

Sure it probably hasn't been fair to you, but the way I see it you're letting it continue to affect you.

Maybe you just like an argument, but you do seem fixated on some things. Hating is fun though. I think everyone needs something to hate. I used to hate The Rodent, but now I really miss those days. I used to hate feminism, but now I don't really care. I still like to indulge in some feminist social commentry, but it really just doesn't do it for me anymore. I laugh more often these days. Those zany feminists, what are they like! I used to hate Manly, but now I don't really care about the NRL. I call it six tackles kick. Rugby is much better.

I suppose you have to ask what your hate is really doing for you. Is it loving you right?

When you're really old, will you regret wasting so much emotional energy on all this feminism stuff?

Does it not worry you at all that you are basically a reverse-rad-fem? People steer away from people like that at the fashionable parties.

Still, it's nice to have an interest.

And I think hate keeps some people going. You know those old guys who come over to you at the pub and bang on about Nixon or something. Gotta admire a grudge that lasts that long. Can be entertaining for a little while while you're waiting for the guy who is supposed to shout the next drink to catch up.

you must like me...because i like you
though i long for the touch...and to touch
that touch...in lue of touch..hits far too hard..[hurts far too much]

we missing the basic things
the overwelming need to touch other
if not in loving way..then ever more hurtfull ways

guys fighting guys for girls..[to touch]
cant touch the girl..but my fist can touch ya face

its all about connecting with others
and govt has become so addept with us not touching
[not planning not sceming..not talking...work ya beast

subvert ya sex drive
into total loyalty to a concept
loyalty to the party..loyalty to the core..teram..country

subvert your sexuality into other uses..
no touching..do not touch...were missing the fact
that massage soothes the most savage beast..more hugs..less drugs

touch..but dont touch too hard
or too often..once a king allways a king
but once a k-night.,.is enough...[except to the needy or greedy]

one ya dont have
is one ya cant ever catch up

only make up

R0bert, the issue is very complex, I agree. What’s clear is that there is little to constrain women who are “driven by emotional hurt to take a swipe at their man.” as Pericles puts it so well, whilst men who defend themselves are severely limited in the range of responses they are expected to employ.

Pericles, I must say I thought you had more substance.

First, I have never expressed a wish to “be free to give your lady a whack” as you so charmingly put it. I have expressed concern that she should feel free to give me one.

Second, your argument as to physicality is ridiculous. Women are sufficiently physically capable to be accepted as front-line soldiers and as police. The idea of the “frail little woman” is so Victorian as to be laughable. I’m not a small man but I’ve known lots of women who are bigger. that's wiothout even considering the potential for escalation.

Third, if your argument as to the emotional response of women holds water, how on earth can we trust them to do anything requiring a dispassionate response? Apparently some women are quite capable of achieving high public and other office, including running banks and the country. Your generalisation is simply stereotyping and rather insulting to women.

Fourth, I already know it’s “how it is”, I was speculating as to the possible reasons for it and the implications of that. Besides, “that’s how it is” is not actually a supporting argument at all, it’s just circularity.

Houellebecq, escalation as a factor is simply never mentioned by the DV industry. That was one of the issues I had hoped to discuss, until Pericles (or was it Dickens, it all seemed very Mrs Micawber) distracted me with his prattle.

And I’m not unhappy; ta though...

I didn't quite read it that way, Antiseptic.

>>First, I have never expressed a wish to “be free to give your lady a whack” as you so charmingly put it.<<

So thank you for putting me right. I had read this incorrectly:

>>I would run away before I defended myself against such an assault, simply because the law makes me unable to do aso without risking being charged with assault.<<

I made the assumption that the only thing holding you back from the whack was the risk of legal redress. It was the "simply because the law makes me unable to do so" that had me fooled.

>>The idea of the “frail little woman” is so Victorian as to be laughable.<<

I agree, totally laughable. It is, however, your interpretation, not mine. Read again what I actually wrote, as opposed to what you think I wrote, and tell me which part you disagree with.

>>Third, if your argument as to the emotional response of women holds water, how on earth can we trust them to do anything requiring a dispassionate response?<<

Again, you seem to enjoy translating what I write into your own script. It was a comparison, not an absolute, and tied to the example provided, not a generalization. Heck, no-one would be bold enough to tar all women with the brush of constant emotion-based responses.

For one, they'd likely get a slap...

Just kidding.

>>Fourth...“that’s how it is” is not actually a supporting argument<<

In this case, it will have to do. As has been pointed out by others, if you dislike it so much then you are free to try to drum up support to change it.

But you might need some stronger justification.

Antiseptic <"First, I have never expressed a wish to “be free to give your lady a whack” as you so charmingly put it. I have expressed concern that she should feel free to give me one."

Is that so?
Why then did you make this comment Antiseptic? ">>I would run away before I defended myself against such an assault, simply because the law makes me unable to do aso without risking being charged with assault.<<"

Like Pericles said, it seems to me that you would give the little woman a hiding if you didn't think you would be punished/jailed?

At the end of the day, if a woman injures a man or anyone else in a malicious assault, she will be charged and jailed, just the same as a man would.
A man can leave a violent woman and move out.

So what, exactly, is your problem Antiseptic?

Dear Antiseptic,

Surveys suggest that each year an extremely high number
of couples go through a violent episode in which one
partner tries to cause the other serious pain or injury.
Women assault their partners as often as men do, and
either are equally capable of causing harm to the other.
Although women are rarely a match for their partners in
a fistfight, they are more likely to use lethal weapons
(notably kitchen knives).

The sociological research of the past two decades has
revealed an astonishing amount of family violence -
between spouses, between parents and offspring, and among the
offspring themselves. Then there's also child abuse -
involving such acts as burning children with cigarettes,
locking them up in closets, tying them up for hours or
days, or breaking their bones. This is alarmingly common, and
probably causes many runaways that happen each year.
Also the sexual abuse of children - is rarely a matter of
molestation by a stranger. It's usually perpetrated by some
family member on another.

The source of all this violence may lie in the dynamics of
an intimate environment that close relationships are likely to
involve more conflict than less intimate ones, since there
are more occasions for tensions to arise and more likelihood
that deep emotions are provoked.

Another souce may lie outside the relationship, for violence
could frequently be a response to frustration. If the person
affected cannot strike back at the source of the problem -
the aggression may be readily re-directed at family members
or their partner.

In any event, the extent of violence in groups whose members
are supposed to love and care for one another is not easily
explained and suggests that these relationships are under
greater pressures than it can easily bear.

Sorry I will not bend the knee to this rubbish.
Most woman I ever had in my life or interacted with would not have bad thoughts about me.
But twice controlling and totally untrust worthy little princesses have been shown my door no violence but no debate.
It is stupid true, to not except some women deserve what they get, some do, play on the idea you can not hit them, and some are unworthy of the name woman.
We will see no denials, some men fit those descriptions too.
My opponent, the fat controller is as sexy as a telegraph pole.
Harsh as a drunken Warfie and lies for the enjoyment between bashing her man.

Get off the turps Suze and Pericles, one can defend oneself without 'give your lady a whack' or 'give the little woman a hiding'.

Do you two work for the Tele?

Anyone who has read any of anti's posts, which you both have, would know he means just the very act of defending himself would put him in a position of being perceived as the aggressor. It's a slightly hyperbolic meme of his that if the missus beat him over the head 20 times with a frying pan, and the police came they would look intently at her wrists to see if he used any undue force to prevent this. Such is the persecution complex but I think in less hyperbolic terms he has a point, accepted by Pericles himself that the cops would not be looking to the woman as the aggressor which is central to the whole argument he's trying to make.

Sorry, I forgot about the accepted misrepresentation for fun and persecution. It's what makes OLO so much fun. As you were.

Let's just admit it, there is a double standard. There are double standards all over the place - most of us only recognise them when we are not the beneficiary.

Let's look at the why. The double standard is a historic one stemming from the old fashioned notion of man as protector and the notion that, as the stronger of the two men, continue, in this instance, to be held to a higher standard. The same applies to an adult in a confrontation with a child.

The same historical precedents and prejudices work in regard to rape cases, sexual drives, sexual harrassment or women/men in certain roles.

What can be done? Forget governments - they are only one part of the solution (they are pressured not only by 'needs' based policy but by squeaky wheel phenomena).

It is up to each of us to respect each individual (man or woman) looking first with as fair as a perspective as possible. This includes not asssuming that every man accused of rape must be guilty and that every woman who alleges rape is a liar. Innocent until proven guilty both for the accuser as well as for the accused.

The simple fact is the majority of victims of DV are women and children (heaven forbid we use the term 'victim' - I can hear the outraged cries now). However that said, it does not mean that programs like White Ribbon cannot target DV as a whole including women taking responsibility for their own acts of violence, we want equality afterall.

Does the white ribbon program actually work - it may have some impact on the social psyche I guess, but let's face it we all know DV is wrong.

From my POV, resources would be best spent on providing practical and counselling supports for victims and perpetrators. Is any lowlife that would commit violence really going to be any the better from government advertising other than providing information as to where to get help should they one day wake up to themselves and realise they are a low life.

Yes, I agree Pelican. I have no trouble with having one anti-violence day to fit all.

The fact remains though that women and children (and other men) DO come off second best physically by the hand of other men, than most victims of female violence.

I can therefore understand in a way why the White Ribbon Day was thought of first.

No amount of bleating from some OLO members can change the fact that women are the larger number of domestic violence victims.

I hate all violence, and would be happy to have an all encompassing anti-violence organisation commenced, but somehow I don't think that would suit the purposes of Antiseptic's problem...

"No amount of bleating from some OLO members can change the fact that women are the larger number of domestic violence victims."

Bleating from OLO members won't change it. The fact that it's a lie based on dodgy stats built on assumptions about power structures in relationships is the bit you don't seem to grasp. I and others have present links to a large number of studies which show that the statement you made is false over a sustained period of time. A plea to indicators driven by existing perceptions about DV does not rebut the facts.

The point has been demonstrated over and over again, when it comes to "numbers" rather than specific aspects of DV such as high ned injuries DV is not overly genderised, if anything women initiate physical violence against partners more often than men. Eg to use your terms "men are the larger number of domestic violence victims"

That's not about impact rather numbers because it's numbers that you mentioned.

No one seem to care too much about impact when it's not convenient, eg the far higher suicide rates amongst men than women don't seem to raise much ire.

R0bert

"No one seem to care too much about impact when it's not convenient, eg the far higher suicide rates amongst men than women don't seem to raise much ire."

RObert that is just emotive and untrue. Suicide rates among men have been highlighted in the media for some time with huge follow up campaigns and support. I also question your stats in relation to DV.

We can all go out and cherrypick all the unfair things that face us as men and women specific, but really they are all people problems.
Antiseptic's masculinist approach and vigillance in advocating for men's rights, would be better aided by acknowledging some of the difficulties faced by women. He has never done that, so I remain unconvinced about the premise of his motives. I am reminded of the equally ardent feminists who do not release their own grip on the perception that women = good, men = evil.

Similar statements have been made in the reverse by many men on this forum.

Division does not solve problems, it only exacerbates them.

Finally some discussion worth the name, rather than silly antediluvian white-knightism and even sillier fan-girl tittering.

Pericles, I'll be kind and assume your lack of ability to mount a cogent argument without deliberately misrepresenting the other side or flinging ad hominem is due to some form of debilitation rather than mere decrepitude.

Lexi, this discussion isn't specifically about DV, except in the sense that the protagonists in the original article happened to be partners. It's about the fact that violence directed at men, especially violence by women, can happen in a public manner with no apparent interest or help for the victim from those present and what that says about the unhealthy way our society has skewed perceptions about all sorts of issues relating to gender. However, thanks for the contribution, I'm glad to see that you for one haven't fallen into the same old tired routine.

Houellebecq, I'm not concerned about myself with respect to this issue, but I am very concerned for my son and for my daughter for that matter. I would hate to have either of them affected negatively by a social model that tries to deny human realities, but I have a feeling it's already too late. When a pseudo-"reporter" like Tory Shepherd can have a dishonest hate piece like this published in a national news organ, there's already a long way to go to get back to balance www.thepunch.com.au/articles/i-am-angry-white-man-hear-me-roar/.

Pelican, as so often a voice of sanity. I suspect that the White Ribbon Campaign works very well at its main task - raising the profile of hacks of all stripes, from third-rate sociologists to second-rate actors, as well as providing lots of publicly-funded opportunities for public servants to have barbecues instead of having to pretend to work. I doubt it does anything at all to reduce violence of any kind. The whole concept of taking personal steps to reduce the likelihood of a bad situation escalating is simply ignored. It's foolish to demand that a strong person must accept abuse from a weak one instead of teaching the weak one not to be abusive.

Deara RObert,

The points you raise are so heartfelt and worrisome and I
feel that they are of concern to most people. Very few
people I know focus on any gender distinctions - most
take people as they find them. There's rotten sods on both
sides of the gender divide.

It has just occurred to me - re-reading the column of Charles
Waterstreet (I don't know much about the man) but it does
make one wonder about his motives in this incident that he
chose to describe so vividly in his column and why he chose
to behave the way he did:

1) He Sat and watched while someone was abused.
2)He Took no action to help, either by calling the police
or an ambulance, if the victim was harmed.
3) He actually took notes of what was said by the woman
(therefore knowing why the attack was taking place).
4) And then he just used this unfortunate incident (if
true at all) to create some excitement for his column.

I never thought of it that way Lexi, but you are right!
The author must be some sort of voyeur?
Or maybe he thought he would let the violence he was observing play itself out so he could report this terrible abuse of the man by a woman?

I would hazard a guess that most of us have seen, or been involved in, violence perpetrated by a woman. It is no great secret.

All I can say is that the injuries sustained by women and other men by violent male perpetrators were almost always more severe than when women attacked men.

Of course, if guns, knives or bombs were used, the injuries were the same, no matter who pulled did the attacking.

At the end of the day, what does it really matter though?

An injury of any sort is just as awful to a man as it is to a woman, so we should all work together to try and reduce the terrible violence in our society.

I believe we should have more severe penalties for violent offenders, no matter what their backgrounds or gender.

"It's foolish to demand that a strong person must accept abuse from a weak one instead of teaching the weak one not to be abusive."

Agreed Anti, and I don't demand that they should, it was more to understand and explain some of these accepted biases in a historical context. We are all biased and influenced by old mores as well as changing and evolving ones. Those who grew up in the 70s were as much influenced by the white-knightedness as the feminist movement.

The first thing in quelling division is to admit biases and take a more holistic (wholistic) approach.

Maybe the new masculinist movment is part of this social change just as the feminists said 'enough is enough' now men are doing the same. On a positive note, governments are taking more of an interest in men's issues due to pressures from men's groups. Maybe ultimately all the lobby groups and squeaky wheels will achieve their aims. When all is said and done, don't most of us want universal human compassion, justice and respect. These are not gender specific goals.

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/a-pivsters-guide-to-radical-feminism-and-man-hate/

See. Balance anti. Or standard Outrage Industry guff I suppose.

I made a bet whether that MP who was quoted about the smelly imigrants would make it to lunch time before being forced into an apology. Easy money that. We live in the idiocracy.

'It's foolish to demand that a strong person must accept abuse from a weak one instead of teaching the weak one not to be abusive.'

Not sure whether I agree with that. It's not fair, but there is something to be said for rising above it in a zen kind of way. I remember talking to this Buddhist once and he was trying to convince me it didn't matter what the street beggar did with the money he tossed him. That was an issue for the beggar to sort out he reckoned. I like the simplicity in that.

Wasn't it some commie who said from each according to their abilities. Some people are hopeless cases. Why not be smug and pity them.

'programs like White Ribbon cannot target DV as a whole including women taking responsibility for their own acts of violence, we want equality afterall.'

Not even that really. Nothing to do with equality, just recognising that there doesn't HAVE to even be a victim and abuser, and such categorisations are often entirely innacurate. It's a matter of teating a problem pragmatically and the pragmatic advise is not to escalate domestic disputes and to accept responsibility for where you may have exacerbated the situation. Cue cries of 'BLAMING THE VICTIM!'.

It's impossible to have a reasonable adult conversation when one party has to be 100% victim with no responsibility. Accepting some responsibility for your hand, however small, in the events that lead to a violent encounter does not diminish the responsibility for anyone elses actions. I believe, and call me daft if you wish, the Australian public is mature and intelligent enough to understand the distinction.

But we'll have to live with the victim/abuser dichotomy and the simplistic slogans and gender politics rather than effectively dealing with issues for some time I'm affraid.

Pelican how often have you seen male suicide rates taken seriously in the context of DV and especially verbal and emotional abuse? Plenty of talk of body counts for women but male suicide rates draw a deathly silence in the context of the role that emotional abuse might play in that.

How often have you seen any serious work attempting to get to causes for male suicide rates? Male suicide is acknowledged, occasionally the subject of some publicity but very little public work on the drivers that have men ending their own lives at far higher rates than women.

If you question my view of the DV stats have a look at http://lilt.ilstu.edu/mjreese/psy290/downloads/Archer%202000.pdf

I've posted it a number of times and it does seem to be a genuine attempt to understand and explain the differences between the two views of rates of DV.

R0bert

Why, thank you, Antiseptic.

>>Pericles, I'll be kind and assume your lack of ability to mount a cogent argument without deliberately misrepresenting the other side or flinging ad hominem is due to some form of debilitation rather than mere decrepitude.<<

Kindness personified, I'd say.

Misrepresentation and ad hominem do not, of course, feature at all in your own offerings. Thank goodness for that, it would be simply horrid if you had to resort to insults to make your point.

But it might be worth thinking things over a little more.

>>I am very concerned for my son and for my daughter for that matter. I would hate to have either of them affected negatively by a social model that tries to deny human realities<<

I wonder which "human realities" you have in mind here?

To me, the "human reality" is that men don't hit women, because it is against nature. Is denying this a good idea, do you think? And how would denying it negatively affect your children?

Or is it the "human reality" that we have assault laws, that allow anyone who has been assaulted to lay a complaint against their aggressor? Why would you want to deny those "human realities"?

Perhaps you had something else in mind? Since I would hate to misrepresent you, perhaps you could clarify?

I suspect the social model is, by and large, still intact. The little scenario that Mr Waterstreet described for us so vividly does not "negatively affect" that social model, nor does it shift the world off its axis.

As I said at the outset, context is everything.

Pericles:"Kindness personified, I'd say.

Misrepresentation and ad hominem do not, of course, feature at all in your own offerings. Thank goodness for that, it would be simply horrid if you had to resort to insults to make your point."

It would indeed. Fortunately I'm scrupulously ethical and eschew such methods.

Suse, you've come a long way since the start of the thread. I must congratulate you.

Pelican:"Maybe the new masculinist movment is part of this social change just as the feminists said 'enough is enough' now men are doing the same."

Perhaps. I'd like to hope that some moderate voices making sound points in a variety of media and social contexts, pointing out the incongruities and overarching preconceptions that inform so much of the discussion would have some ameliorating impact on the worst excesses.This discussion has already moved a long way from the initial kneejerking and that's not bad in its own way.

Thanks for the link Houellie, I didn't realise how dangerous a vagina could be until I got divorced.

R0bert, speaking of male suicide, it appears that the ute which collided with the B-double truck at Urunga a couple of days a go, killing an 11yr old boy, was unaccountably driving on the wrong side of the road, with a single occupant male driver, at high speed, for some time.He was also killed, as he no doubt intended.

RObert
I have not seen statistics specifically in relation to DV for men or women. I was involved in a job once where attempts at suicide were taken very seriously - gender didn't come into it.

There is nothing wrong with approaching 'solutions' from a specific aspect including gender sometimes. In the same way that other factors - age, impact of disaster, urban vs rural, divorce, illness - where any one might at different times, hold centre stage.

Ideally no group should be ignored and I believe this is largely the case thanks to strong influences from groups like Beyond Blue and Lifeline.

Houlley
'Not even that really. Nothing to do with equality, just recognising that there doesn't HAVE to even be a victim and abuser, and such categorisations are often entirely innacurate...'

Sure Houlley, there obvious behaviours that increase the risk of injury in a confrontational situation. There is a good case for education for boys and girls around risky behaviours and learning how to diffuse a situation rather than inflame it. If these things can even be 'learnt' (as opposed to taught).

Forgetting the nuances, there are cases where there is a clear victim and clear perpetrator (either gender). This does not diminish your argument that these lines can be blurred when, for example, a woman may indeed be the primary attacker or at least equally responsible. Society tends to see the woman as victim and I do understand the difficulties men face in making a decision to defend themselves. Possibly a lose-lose situation.

Unfortunately though (I can hear your sigh) victim blaming does occur even in legitimate situations. In law a crime is a crime, the justice system does not (in modern times) take into account in sentencing, any idiocy on the part of the 'victim'. (Whether it be walking the streets at night eg.rape or leaving a handbag unattended for a short period eg. theft.)

As far as victim blaming is concerned, claims need to be judged in case context, otherwise one is comparing apples and oranges.

Antiseptic seems to be conflicting versions of events around.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-nsw/max-macgregor-of-urunga-crushed-to-death-while-he-slept-after-truck-crashed-through-his/story-e6freuzi-1226239403813

http://www.nambuccaguardian.com.au/news/national/national/general/why-sleeping-max-died-ute-forced-truck-to-swerve-into-house-say-police/2414171.aspx

I'd not be keen to speculate in this instance but there are enough confirmed suicides to be worthy of some serious work on the driving causes.

I don't think that emotional abuse from a spouse would be the sole factor but have little doubt that it's one, combined with the attitude that men should just tough it out, harden the f$#k up, "Live with it." etc.

There is clearly some stuff that's not working for many men. Having seen first hand how difficult it is to get support to get a violent spouse stopped and how gender loaded the family law system is/was the suggestions that men get support or can easily leave are wishful thinking rather than reality for many.

The question was asked earlier about the authors response, I don't know his motivations but generally I think that people are so used to the gender paradigm for DV that when confronted with a different view most either refuse to see it or don't know how to react.

That in no way should take away from acknowledgement of the horrible experiences some women have with male partners as some seem to think, both genders are capable of great good and great wrong.

R0bert

RObert, I don't agree that nothing is done to address the male suicide rates. Certainly here in country WA it is taken very seriously indeed, with far more young country men committing suicide than city men.

The local mental health team in our country towns work very hard to attract males to self-help groups and social groups etc.

Men should be encouraged to stop this 'I'm tough, and I don't need help attitude', when they are suffering from some inner turmoil.

Don't forget though, that all these men have many female friends and family in their lives who love them. So I don't believe it is a gender problem that is stopping us working on this awful problem together.

This subject is a very difficult one, and it won't be worked out any time soon, unfortunately.

I would like to place a small wager here.
I dd not notice any man promote the thought a woman should be even hit here.
But note in this mornings media a man has been sacked.
For saying SOME Muslim men in detention are teaching the kids it is ok to bash the wife.
Bet it gets less coverage here.
Got to go a truck load of Halos is about to arrive for the villages angels, women only of course.

Pelican "I have not seen statistics specifically in relation to DV for men or women." if that's the case why "I also question your stats in relation to DV."

I've provided plenty of resources over a period of time, tried to avoid advocacy material (or pointed out where that's what it seems to be but I think it's still worthwhile).

It's quite clear that when both genders are asked similar questions that the numbers issue in DV is not particularly gendered and if anything it's slightly more women initiating DV than men.

If you've "not seen statistics specifically in relation to DV for men or women" that's been your choice, as I pointed out the paper I referenced ( http://lilt.ilstu.edu/mjreese/psy290/downloads/Archer%202000.pdf ) is a good coverage of the issue of numbers and why the disparity in reports.

I don't think it's advocacy work, have a look and tell me where they have got it significantly wrong.

R0bert

It's good to be consistent, Antiseptic.

>>Fortunately I'm scrupulously ethical and eschew such methods.<<

I note that you also "eschew" responding to the questions put to you.

So that's all right then.

Have a great day.

RObert
You are talking two different aspects of DV.

First, I said I had not seen any statistics in relation to DV based on your claims around suicide and DV. Workers in this field don't make decisions to provide assistance based on gender, it is irrelevant and they don't give a toss if the person is male or female. It is trite compared to the reality of suicide.

Secondly, I don't support the claim that women (overall) are more violent than men or that there are more male victims of DV than women. This does not mean I believe women to be as pure as the driven snow nor men as evil incarnate. It also does not mean I don't understand the statistics may not reflect the reality of DV especially how many men might be reflected in the statistics who were defending themselves.

Two different aspects of the same problem.

As an aside, one thing I have noticed of late is younger women being involved more and more in violent acts, not DV, but street violence or violent crime (like bashing up some poor taxi driver).

As someone who is getting on a bit in years, I find this pattern disappointing. Why is it occuring? One can summise it is lack of parental controls, social disadvantage or more violence in the media, probably all contributing but it is a disturbing trend.

As Germaine Greer once said, women fought for liberation and all they got was equality.
:)

Pericles:"I note that you also "eschew" responding to the questions put to you."

I try to avoid following the smelliest of red herrings, yes.

For example, this topic is not about whether it's OK for men to hit women, it's about whether it's OK for women to hit men. Therefore a question about men hitting women is at best tangential to the discussion, at worst a rather transparent attempt to pretend that anyone objecting to the one must atomatically approve of the other. That may work well down at the local feminist collective, but it's hardly germane to the discussion. Feel free to come up with useful questions and I'll do my best to answer them usefully.

Pelican, I tend to the view that none of the factors you mention have much relevance to female-initiated violence, since all of them have existed for a long time and the violence that you have observed is new. The one significant new factor is feminism, which has been telling girls that it's OK to hit boys and that boys musn't hit back for about 50-odd years, or about 2 generations. the mothers of these girls have learnt the lesson well and made sure their daughters are "good feminists" and one of the things good feminists do is refuse to take any kind of lip from men. Instead, they pick up a glass or an ashtray and bash them, or they simply stand there bashing them 20 times secure in the knowledge that there's nothing he can do to stop it.

At its heart is contemptible cowardice. It's not courageous to beat a muzzled dog, it's simply gutless abuse.

Pelican I hope that we've been talking at cross purposes. I'd strongly suggest a look at the link I've been referencing if you've still got doubts about DV victims not being mostly women.

From page 14 of the article (again the whole article is worth a read, one paragraph does not sum up the analysis)

"When measures were based on specific acts, women were significantly
more likely than men to have used physical aggression toward their partners and to have used it more frequently, although the effect size was very small (d = -.05). When measures were based on the physical consequences of aggression (visible injuries or injuries requiring medical treatment), men were more likely than women to have injured their partners, but again, effect sizes were relatively small (d = .15 and .08)."

I'd like to see the numbers game out of the discussion but the oft repeated lie that women are mostly the victims is used over and over again to try and dismiss attempts to address concerns such as the ones Antiseptic raised in this thread. We don't seem to be able to progress understanding of DV while the lie that DV is something that men do to women holds so much power in peoples thinking.

I've not seen any serious work on the DV/suicide stuff (gender or otherwise), a topic that does not seem to attract much interest from the DV industry. No numbers at hand but my understanding is that females do a lot more attempted suicides than men, men do a lot more successful suicides than women and there are conflicting views on what proportion of attempts are cries for help rather than genuine attempts to end the persons life.

R0ber

Anti over the years we both have posted here I have seen you say things a little harshly.
And not agreed ,some times, with you.
But for the most part you speak for other men.
I think you, like me, would take a lot of provocation before considering hitting a woman.
But remain baffled by the thought NO WOMAN is ever wrong.
I increasingly fear the future impacts of not womans equality, but for far too many the word is DOMINATION.
Very few will contest some men dominate, even less females will admit women do too.
Any pub, around here at least, has its females wanting to be male table.
Chance walking too close if you are brave, in an effort to prove they are what they are not, man like you may get a fight you never wanted.
All they got was EQUALITY? is that an admission they want more still?

"But remain baffled by the thought NO WOMAN is ever wrong."

Belly I don't think that many if any would think that. It's like most things, a matter of where we are most likely to give the benefit of the doubt and what excuses are seen as having some mitigating value.

I get very frustrated by a seeming unwillingness to confront the evidence or argue it on it's merits if the evidence is considered flawed but I don't think that most feminists are as extreme as you seem to be suggesting.

I think much of the DV issue is stalled because of the determination of some to play it as a gender issue rather than a human issue. rather than step back and look for real causes a lot of "research" has been fixated on the idea that it's all about male power. The research which has tried to look deeper is largely sidelined by the vested interests in the industry or dismissed because it ends up showing that we are all in this together, that males and females are not all that different on some things.

R0bert

Pericles, I'm going to do something I rarely done on OLO and apologise for my treatment of your presentation of your view.

I'm sure it is sincerely and soundly held, despite my ridicule and I hold to pretty much the same view myself. I was not only taught not to hit women, but that gentlemen don't swear in front of ladies and hat ladies don't take these things for granted, but try to live up to the attention with proper grace and decorum and appreciation.

It is extremely irksome when I am charged with wanting to beat women.

So I responded pugnaciously perhaps, which is my nature.

Belly, I don't speak for anyone but myself and my children inasmuch they'll let me.
I do think lots of men are voiceless in our society, though. Feminism has become a fait accompli in our Government institutions, especially the ALP via Emily's List. They own nearly all the female ALP MPs and Senators in all states and the Federal Parliament. There isn't any kind of equivalent body advocating for the special treatment of male politicians who identify as masculinists.

Antiseptic<"Feminism has become a fait accompli in our Government institutions, especially the ALP via Emily's List."

Is that so? If equality is what feminists have wanted for so long, then feminism is most certainly not a fait accompli yet at all, as far as I can see...

It's interesting you mentioned Emily's list.
I don't know a lot about it, but I have read it is a US derived organization dedicated to electing pro-choice Democratic women to office.
Why would you have a problem with that?
I would have thought you would be a pro-choice advocate?

In any case I read something funny about women in politics the other day:

"I think it's about time we voted for senators with breasts. After all, we've been voting for boobs long enough." ~Clarie Sargent, Arizona senatorial candidate.

RObert that is my point.
Not most, not many, but some women are like that.
And some will always, deny that.
DV is wrong always,and unacceptable always.
I truly, think our country is in crisis, because of the breakdowns in relationships.
My concern is solidly, the fate of Children, victims of dysfunctional homes.
In Foster care and finding love,sometimes for the first time in their lives.
Heart breaking.
We ignore the truth, some times both sex's use every form of DV yes I Antiseptic am Alpha male.
But always knew my place, in a relationship, it never was the fat frog on the lounge demanding service.
It always was a team effort.as it should be.
I will not hide my view some women are every bit as bad as some men.

The following links may be of some interest:

http://www.adfvc.unsw.edu.au/PDF%20files/Men_as_Victims.pdf

And

http://www.mensrights.com.au/page13y.htm

Lexi the Headey, Scott and de Vaus is one I've referenced fairly frequently although I've referred to http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/dom/heady99.htm

I'd not seen the other paper before but if the first paragraph is any indication it's loaded with bias and I will be surprised if it comes to any realistic conclusions.

There is actually quite a long history of work covering rates of DV by both genders so the claim "To date there is little statistical
data recording men as victims, either within Australia or overseas." is blatantly false. Either they've not done the most basic checks or they are deliberately ignoring a large body of statistical data.

The paper I referenced earlier is a good start. http://lilt.ilstu.edu/mjreese/psy290/downloads/Archer%202000.pdf

Radar is an advocacy site but does have some good links. http://www.mediaradar.org/

An article by Murray Straus (referenced from Radar) discusses the concealment of evidence in this area. http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gender-symmetry-with-gramham-Kevan-Method%208-.pdf

I've noticed that the dodgy work tends to start with a statement of faith confirming their commitment to the gender paradigm,

I'll try and have a better look at the first link when I get a chance, it may do better than it's first few paragraphs.

Cheers
R0bert

If it were thought by the female concerned, that anyone would have acted on behalf of the male , or that he himself could, this incident would have never happened.

In my sons case, his wine cask drinking beloved destroyed his car, his bass and amp, and the rest of his possessions, while he stood passively by, too smart to attempt to defend his possessions or himself. Based upon his fundamental understanding of how society would have frowned upon him for doing so.

This is the underlying fact here, "she did it on the basis of probabilities, she took advantage of the situation to express herself violently, publicly, and motivated most likely by vengeance.

The difference in male to male conflict is that both parties have equal rights, this being the primary deterrent for such behaviours as restitution by violence publicly. Most matters of conflict in male relationships are settled one way or another, in private.

In a world of warrior princesses promoted in film, television, business and news media, the tendency for the female to initiate this type of behaviour will increase.

Finally, you could consider this whole thing an isolated case, and just get on with life.

However I have a daughter that I think believes, that she can safely be the only female in a crowd, due to her capacity as a modern woman. This view of hers depends entirely upon when you were born, and how much television you have watched.

Her safety in reality would be entirely dependent upon the attitudes of her male company.

When I was young there were bullies, but there were also alpha males that bullied the bullies, for being bullies. Such behaviour today is rare and discouraged in males, whilst females behaving badly publicly is encouraged, it's the backbone of reality TV, even sold as if role reversal equals freedom if you like.

And not a bullie basher in sight.

RObert thinker 2 very well put.
I want to intrude with yet another truth.
Men hide the fact the missus hits them.
Just as they would be expected to.
And thinker 2 you got it right, very much so.
SOME too many, women know they can get away with it and do it.
Still proud to have served this country's best union, I remember the reward only the very best officials get.
It is worth far more than gold, TRUST, members who trust take you out the back of the lunch shed to ask, to tell about the things not even related to work.
Women, like men, can be dreadful, and do bash thieve from and betray husbands.
Met one of those mates/ex members Tuesday, in the underground car park big shopping center.
Both happy to see one another we spoke,for more than an hour, right there.
As we left we both noted we had never in our life thought another breed lived there.
Drug sales thefts from cars domestic violence , it all took place and women as much as men involved.

Thinker2:"When I was young there were bullies, but there were also alpha males that bullied the bullies, for being bullies. Such behaviour today is rare and discouraged in males, whilst females behaving badly publicly is encouraged,"

That's a very perceptive point. At no time in my life can I recall a man being permitted to even verbally abuse a woman without somebody intervening in some way, even if it's just to say "pull your head in or I'll call the cops". I can't ever recall a public beating and humiliation of this nature being inflicted by a man on a woman, even in some of the less-salubrious parts of the city, but it's become increasingly common for young women to feel completely free to act out their immediate emotional response with physical violence directed at men.

TV does not exist in isolation. Journalism has become an overwhelmingly female trade.

From http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m6836/is_1_45/ai_n25034009/

"In Australia, the ratio of female to male graduates applying for journalist positions is now about six to one (Plane, 1996); in the state of South Australia approximately 85% of journalism graduates are female. Recent census data indicated that there were 10,317 working journalists in Australia, 57.9% male and 42.1% female."

Given the 6:1 disparity in new hires, that will very rapidly lead to an overwhelmingly feminised profession, just as in all of the other professions except science and engineering. Overall the tertiary education sector comprises roughly 2 female students for every male, leaving men in the trades, where they have little public voice. In addition, part of nearly every journalism course is a unit (or several units) on gender that are informed exclusively by an unchallenged feminist ideological perspective. On top of that, there is a very active feminist lobby that is quick to make its displeasure felt at anything offered by media that doesn't actively reinforce the preferred feminist stereotypes. The Press Council and the Anti-Discrimination commission receive lots of complaints about even seemingly-trivial challenges to that stereotype.

[cont]

In that enviroment it's not surprising that even intelligent people like Pericles might start holding unexamined assumptions as eternal verities. What hope does the average person with no capacity to reason critically have of resisting, let alone those who like the idea of men being second-class citizens?

The not-unexpected result of all this is that violence by women is rising fast. According to the ABS it's rising at around 150% a year, based on conviction rates, which is probably a low estimate, given the reluctance of people to intervene in female assaults on males. I have no doubt that the incident mentioned would have resulted in a male assailant being given a custodial sentence, but it would never have been heard of if Mr Waterstreet had not seen fit to raise the matter.

What has been lost is the concept of the quid pro quo. Feminism has trained women that they have a right to be treated better than men and that men have an obligation to treat them well, but it has not inculcated any sense of a concomitant obligation on women to behave in a manner that justifies that preferential treatment, or to treat men well. Men have the fear of the law and social opprobrium to stay their hand, while women have no need to consider consequences at all. Even if they are charged, they will very rarely be given anything more than a slap on the wrist and most walk completely free, having claimed to be depressed, or i some other way unable to be responsible for their actions.

The whole point of feminism has been to remove any quid pro quo of any kind for women. It is axiomatic that women are entitled to do as they wish and to suggest otherwise is to invite all sorts of personally insulting invective.

Mr Waterstreet himself was the target of a couple of posts here for raising the topic and of course I was roundly abused for even suggesting that this woman's violence was unacceptable.

Antiseptic two well informed posts I agree with every word.
I in fact think many more will in years ahead.
Well informed can not avoid the changes in female behavior.
A definite need to be in control and to be treated as special is there.
And no longer is it just the male destroying relationships.
I can not leave without reminding of those very funny beer adds.
The bloke talking woman.
We laugh because it is true, of many women, and too big men like the one shown.
Some men have even been stabbed by the wife, more than once, yet if it was the man?

I'm heading away for a few day's. Not sure if I'll be on line or not.

Have fun.

R0bert

You too RObert
Seen those adds we are worth it?
The increasing idea grows, woman are worth it both the pedestal and ownership of males.
Leading to more DV against men and more men being unfaithful.

What about the one where the female cheats here male companion over a chocolate bar Belly. A very good actress she was as well because I haven't bought a Cherry Ripe ever since. (lol)

Gentlemen,

It sounds to me like it's time for you guys to change
who you associate with and find some positive,
productive, loving women - who will show you a whole
new world. ;-)

Lexi that is the heart of this matter.
You from your life can not Begin to think such women live and they do.
Give some thought to the differences in every life.
I talk of low income working class, such people live in different areas than you.
Too about middle to high income construction workers ,some owning 3 homes working to leave work early, harsh conditions lead to harsh things.
Here however is the heart of our differences.
All differences
All views
We must find a way to see life from others point of view.
Not judge on what we know/see.
RObert ANTI, Thinker 2 myself, are not creating shadow people I at least speak about the school room of my life.
Just one, true story, a village, could be any, called Paton place for 45 years.
5 Women all wed, all good looking all willing to entertain other men while husband is at work.
Best looking beats her man, and even sends him walking.
Name of suburb? well its nick name is above her street? home of 3 from that 5? *do not forget to put the toilet seat down Lane*
Women, some, pick soft men, to use and abuse them, such men exist, and some, one day, leave.
It is not defensible to even think only men are wrong.

Dear Belly,

If you re-read my posts on this thread I hope that
you will see that I am seeing things from various
perspectives and that I don't for one moment
deny the existing problem and its complexities.

However, I find it difficult when someone groups
all because of the few.

I find it difficult when someone uses sweeping statements
regarding people. Be they about men, women, religious
groups or whoever. It find it troublesome when the word
"some," is not prefixed in reference to these discussions.

There are women out there who don't blame all their problems
on every man. And there are men out there who don't blame
all their ills on every woman.

Lexi, this is a topic about the general state of play around social attitudes, not about every woman or every man. The fact that there are decent people is taken for granted. It's a shame that you seem to feel the need to make it explicit. Moreover, Belly's point is a good one. You have a genteel middle-class perspective, based on both your own predicpositions and the life you have lead. Many people, however, simply don't and even among those who do, it is all too common for the women to feel free to hit the men, secure in the knowledge they will restrain themselves from hitting back, as Mr Waterstreet pointed out in his column.

What do you think could be done to prevent that attitude from prevailing?

Dear Antiseptic,

Thank You for being civil - I'm scared to open my mouth
around you because from past experience - it hasn't been
pleasant - and that's something that you will also have to
bear in mind in your future responses. No one likes to be
compared to the "sista-hood," (especially when one doesn't know
what on earth that means). Or "Grrrr" girls. You may not even
realise how offensive some of your remarks are - however,
enough said.

I'm very aware that people in different walks of life may
interpret the same phenomenon - in very different ways. Most of us
tend to see things from a viewpoint of subjectivity -
an interpretation based on personal values and experiences.
It is shaped by what our past experience has prepared us to see
and by what we consciously or unconsciously want to see.

It is for that reason that I tried to point out that when
arguing, we should try arguing in a logical manner. Unreasonable
generalisations will be conquered by sound reasoning every
time. That's why statements which blame men or women should
be prefaced by the word - "some."

As for how to change certain attitudes? That's not an easy
thing to do. However, I feel that education is the key.
The emphasis in the media, and elsewhere, should be that
violence is wrong. We should not focus only on one partcular
group - but violence against anyone.

Lexi:"That's why statements which blame men or women should
be prefaced by the word - "some." "

Only if we're saying "some people do this or that". If we're speaking in terms of populations it's reasonable to use the general term. It should be obvious that there is a broad variation, both in attitude and expression of it.

After all this time on various topics, does this really need to be stated again?

On the subject of education, how would you do it? It would require a very major shift in the ideological viewpoint of lots of the people in the education system, since male as perpetrator/female as victim is axiomatic for so many of the supposedly rigorous academics in the field and has become entrenched in the training given to anybody in teaching or social work.

How do we overturn that dogma in favour of a more nuanced and balanced one?

quote..""On the subject of education,..how would you do it?""

the first rul;e...is isolate the problem
[and its here we run into problems]
often it seems they love..
the assulter

or stay 'for the kids'...and other absurdities
believing their masters words..'no one else can love you like i do''

thing is..if someone is hurting you...go
dont look back...the first time IS the last time

[best to sell it to kids as a movie]
or via some i trunes dowload..or twitter thingy
or star power

""since male as perpetrator/female as victim
is axiomatic for so many of the supposedly rigorous academics""

this will llways be the case
and the yonger the feemale..the more we must rail against that

yes woman can be mean as they can be nice
but once they hit...its time to go
or get ready for the next assult

either
or

one hit can kill
[not one puff..but spin
is as much the problem..as a cause]

it the real injury
must be believable...but little pricesses..need us...[to save them from thems-elves]..wonder if drugs facter into the vector

""How do we overturn that dogma..in favour of a more nuanced and balanced one?""

take these people to court
report all assult..however in-con-sequential

there is no safe dose
with violence

the biggest phycopaths..began by hurting the wings off flies
beating up the dog...or squashing the cat...

the smallest signs

say..
run

get out..now
come back..with police..to get your stuff

dont take chances
you cant heal..some people
till they find reason..to want to heal thems-elves

Anti
I am not sure that any amount of education can stop prevailing attitudes. It is is much harder to change attitudes around social behaviours than to, say provide knowledge, such as in anti-smoking or the negative effects of obesity for example. Even then it is up to individuals to make a choice.

How do you stop people from inflicting violence? It has to start from birth, in the home and then reinforced in school. Most of the OLO participants have probably come from comfortable middle class homes in the main, and it is easy to sit back and apply armchair sociology to attitudes within different groups. Teaching respect for others is the key - how do we do this as society? As an atheist, I can concede that to some extent religion did this for us in days gone by (ignoring for the moment that like any organisation authoritative role, it can be corrupted). Not only religion but prevailing cultural norms influenced by other factors.

Some of your arguments are too generalised. Feminists have not been teaching girls to hit boys or 'not to take lip' as you put it. You make these statements as a 'given'.

These changes in social norms are only partly influenced by movements like feminism which you continually forget had it's premise in equal rights (wages etc) and the right to be able to leave a marriage where violence prevailed.

I do agree if the government is going to spend taxpayers money on DV then it should be all-encompassing.

RObert
Have a good break. I think we are talking at cross purposes and the article you linked to does support your stance. However, over the years I have had to disect many studies which fell short on facts and on methodology so I am a little suspect of studies overall until I can disect them a little further. I have not done this with your article (time does not permit) so I cannot make a fair judgement on it's validity despite it's credentials. I think overall we are in agreement on approaches.

Lexi it was not my intention to insult, and I do very often, say SOME and in my view in my posts.
Let me say very clearly, I am not a woman hater.
And do not ever want a return to the past my wife is my property thoughts.
Not so past for some.
One single lifetime, mine, has seen change no one could forecast in women and the relationship they have with men.
Touchy subject, every time but worth the serve I will get for it.
Expectations in 1945 was a rented home or ,with luck one small but comfortable owned cheaply.
Wed for life loyal, or never letting on, and yes mum stayed home dad worked.
Not all, not every socio economic group but mine.
The pill, gee did it change every thing.
Can we agree female sexual predators numbered far less pre pill?
Wages incomes and the box in every home we know as TV lifted expectations.
We,wanting to keep the wife happy bought much more, and we all aimed higher.
Migrants showed us home ownership and much more was in our reach.
That started change, never stopped.
Glory boxes went west the hunt for a husband ,for some was little different than looking for the right provider.
Now, deny it if you wish, some want much more, and think in terms of *we are worth it*
I see by just observing SOME divorced women, activly look for a weaker second husband.
One to control dominate and yes hit.
Saturday night in Sydney at least, tonight some teens to mid twenty's women will hit men spit on police maybe bash the boy Friend on the way home.
It is not invention but it is growing.
And those who do hit the weaker man? always end up on their own just as thuggish men do.

Lexi, whether I say "potayto" and you say "potahto" is irrelevant to the fact that they both describe a single concept.

Belly, what's missing in the message that's being transmitted by so much feminist-inspired media (and academic output for that matter) is the idea of acting respectably if you want to be repescted.

Without that basic idea, no relationship can prosper.

Dear Antiseptic,

I'm not sure that I agree with your statement about
the fact that academics and sociologists have
pre-conceived ideas on this subject and that
education will require some major shift in their
thinking. After all part and parcel of their jobs
involves research,(the systematic investigation of a
particular subject). They have to define the problem,
study existing information, formulate a hypothesis,
collect evidence, before drawing any conclusions.
It's an involved process - and therefore their views
are not set in concrete.

I think part of the problem may lie in the fact that
when discussing the causes of violence - you're dealing
with people not some inanimate object. You're dealing
with complex individual personalities who are capable of
choosing their own courses of action for both rational
and irrational reasons.

I agree with what Pelican posted. She summed it up rather well.
It does have to start from childhood - and respect for others
is part and parcel of the values and norms that parents should
pass onto their children. Education begins at home.

Well Anti I actually agree totally with you.
Respect must be the start and very back bone of every relation ship.
Lexi I wish to remind you, these folk you quote are not perfect.
And for a certainty SOME of the people I talk of, know nothing of them.
Culture can be totally different in one race or community.
I have already highlighted this, SOME can not even read or write SOME never went to school, SOME care nothing for respect.
Anti here is the very heart, very guts of this matter, as you said the doors close every time.
Few want to look and see the changes taking place, in relation ships.
I gave women control in my home total of some things, but took back if asked things they wanted to give me.
No woman ever complained.
But I saw great acts of , can not say it here, from both sex's and always told them head on what I thought.
However, if we can not be open, honest, in debating this subject we are in for hurt.
How can we convict men for a crime we are hearing women do not commit but see the impacts of it every morning?
Life on the North Shore of Sydney is far different than a council high rise in Redfern.

Dear Belly,

I think that you have misunderstood totally - what I was trying
to say. All I can suggest is that you go back and re-read
my posts on this thread.

BTW - respect is something that can be taught in any family
home - regardless of where people live. I grew up
in the Western suburbs of Sydney.

Lexi, the problem is that research has to be based on questions and if certain questions are simply excluded from being asked, then the research that is done never answers them.

A great deal of the so-called research is simply not worth the paper it's written on, since the people doing it are mostly advocates rather than serious thinkers on a difficult subject. As a result, they only publish results that "assist the cause". Erin Pizzey discovered what happens when you try to discuss the real causes of domestic violence and what happened to her is one of the enduring disgraces of feminism. It shows what happens when you threaten an established dogmatic position, whether in a religious setting (Luther, Galileo, et al), or in a quasi-religious ideologically-based one.

As a result, the dominant dogma is paid lip-service by anyone who wants an easy life and goes largely unchallenged on the basis that "I'm OK, why not go along with it".

I'm hopeful that the moderates within the feminist "religion" will prevail, just as they did in the Catholic one. With luck it won't take as long as it took the Catholics...

Respect Lexi CAN be as you say, but can you enforce it.
How about those who have none.
I read every thing you write always, even in that last post I see maybe wrongly, an inability to under stand no absolutes exist in male female relationship.
I have seen the blood smelt it, it smells you know.
Seen the knife still in the chest of a dead husband, young dead man.
I would be a lunatic, not to understand, both sides commit dreadful acts against the other.
But in looking for answers I must confront the big difference in education attitude reasons, including mental health issues.
I TOO have to consider the changing relationship in Some male female interactions.
SOME WOMEN do control hit, hurt men, if that is not true then I am mad.

Dear Antiseptic,

The first step when discussing the problems of
objectivity is to recognise that subjectivity and
objectivity are not two neat and separate categories,
they are really matters of degree. By exercising
scrupulous caution researchers can attempt to be
as objective as possible. This caution involves
a deliberate effort to be conscious of one's own
biases so that they can be kept out of the process
of research and interpretation.

The ethical code of the discipline requires that
researchers be intellectually honest - that they
attempt to be aware of their own values and not allow
these values to distort their work; that they
relentlessly hunt down the relevant facts and not ignore
those that are inconvenient for their pet theories;
that they not manipulate data to prove a point; and that
they not use research to suppress or misuse knowledge.

Moreover, it is the norm that the community does not have
to rely entirely on the integrity of the individual to
ensure that objectivity is strived for. When research is
published, other researchers can assess the findings
and attempt to verify them by repeating the research to see
if it yields the same results. This procedure provides an
extremely effective check against bias and other distortions.

I believe in education for all as the key. If parents,
and - our children's
teachers challenge the next generation to higher standards of
ethics - there is hope.

Teachers can counter the prejudices of some
parents who themselves have not had the schooling to break
the (generally ignorant) cultural inheritance of their parents.

We have to instill in our children an
inquiring mind. From Socrates we obtain the dictum, "the
examined life," is the only life worth living. Socrates
asked us to question everything. It is never rude for a
young pupil to ask - why. And schooling that does not
encourage the exploration of, "why this, why not that,"
does not deserve to be called education.

Dear Belly,

I do not have a problem what what you've written.

Thanks Lexi we can differ yet agree, that is the benefit of coming here to communicate learn hear .
I truly have doubts we can teach good behavior,if we can it is not to all.
Teachers are far better, in my view, today than my youth.
Not all however.
How do we tell children about the personal relationship side of life, at what age, what do we leave out.
Why, no think, why are men still expected to give way to women,to open doors have them on the not sword arm be the protector and provider.
What happens in a relation ship that sees the woman demand it but not return it.
We just must confront why the differences to even start looking at this subject.

Dear Belly,

As far as children are concerned I think that we
as parents, (and as teachers) -
can teach them by example. By our own attitudes
and behaviour towards others. We can teach them what
is and is not acceptable behaviour. We can teach them
to behave with respect towards others, and to encourage
this in all people. That would be a good start.

You are right about that Lexi. Kids learn attitudes and violent behaviours by example. If either of their parents has a 'hatred' of the opposite sex, for whatever reason, then that is bound to rub off on the kids, and severely affect any future relationships they may have with the opposite sex.

If they live with verbal or physical violence in their homes, then the odds are much higher that they will commit violent acts later in life.
Unfortunately, this includes people in the more affluent suburbs, as violence does not discriminate between classes.
Although violence is more prevalent in lower socioeconomic areas, I too believe that education is the only answer in any area.

If we can get the message out to kids at a young age that it is right to show respect to other people, and that it is wrong to physically or verbally attack others, then maybe their home environment won't have such a negative effect on their future life?

We should not just be concentrating on domestic violence though, because there is no doubt that there is plenty of violence committed out on the streets too.

Mind you, this thread appears to be about female violence against men.
Antiseptic and Belly want us all to agree it is rampant out there in the community, and that we should all take the focus off male violence, and direct our rage towards all those violent women.

Again, I will say, no one denies women can be violent.
Why don't we have a discussion on male against male violence?
This is by far the worst violence problem in our community.

Lexi, the point is that parents may be the best teachers, but they're often not teaching the best info. Moreover, the rise in single-parent families has meant that for many kids the male role models in their lives are provided by TV and TV, as thinker 2 has pointed out, has a generally negative view of fathers and of men generally. The same children are also exposed, with no mitigation, to what are often quite unbalanced views about men from their single mother.

Even kids in intact households are not spared. The churches are very strong on rhetoric around the sanctity of women, which is hardly surprising since the bulk of their active members tend to be women and the men they bring along. This has been going on for years, well before Feminism got its game face on.

And it is a fact that young men have historically been more visibly violent in public than young women, especially with a skinful of grog or drugs.

None of that should detract from the idea that young women are also both violent themselves and often urge violence among young men, or that their violence is both real and harmful. Pericles rather silly view that "women are little and weak, while men are big and strong" should never be an excuse for them to expect to be able to act out that violence.

All of those things have informed the prevailing attitudes which have been carefully and skilfully nurtured by several generations of women who would self-identify as "feminists".

Just as in the Christian church, there are sects that differ in the details of what they believe, but nobody dares question the basic dogma that men treat women poorly, since that is the essential basis of their power. "If you really loved me, you'd do this little thing for me" is a dishonest game between a man and a woman: it's the most disgraceful form of politics when it moves to a larger stage.

Fair go Suzionline! Lexi, please re read your last post I agree!
Now I just bet you too understand *while the words are good it is not done in every home*
That is the root of the problem.
Home is not a one fits all term.
It can be two very young teens two kids on social security in a flat.
Or mid twenty's bush Iron shed, caravan park tent.
From a sea side Mansion problems come too.
Lady's, this defensive look at our words, us male, telling us we Anti and I ignore males are pigs, is a blind I know SOME ARE, do not under value my White ribbon pledge/membership.
The last boss I had,who was/is worthy of my respect told us of his mum his dads drunken acts, at National Conference.
Charge you Suz with ignoring the other side of the story.
I am not dead, still help ,and as in all my life all my jobs am helping today.
Up to my arms in this very matter.
Both sides, often nothing to do with upbringing/education or class both sides offend .
In saying that I and Antiseptic apparently,are wrong?
How then do we fix an issue if talking about it brings convictions on charges we have no right to our views.
Deep in human mentality, individuals, seem to have a short circuit, it lets them bash the one they once loved maybe still do.
Ignoring it is a blindness.

Suseonline:"violence does not discriminate between classes. "

Yes, it does. Affluent suburbs are far less violent places to live than those catering to people with little money. aboriginal communities are among the most violent of all, as well as the least economically independent.

Still, you appear to have worked that out in the next sentence, although I'm not sure whether you actually thought much about what you were writing.

You go on to make a claim based on what I described above when you say:
"female violence against men.
Antiseptic and Belly want us all to agree it is rampant out there in the community, and that we should all take the focus off male violence, and direct our rage towards all those violent women."

This is nothing more than a dishonest misrepresentation. It's illustrative of two of the mechanisms I discussed above - the predisposing role of growing up in a social environment (the Catholic church, IIRC) in which man as base creature of his desires/woman as creature of virtue is a standard meme and the standard "if you really loved[women] you'd do this for [women]"

Male/male violence is usually the preserve of young men. It is rare for older men to be directly involved, except when there are women involved and they feel driven to intercede. There are a couple of underlying causes: fights because of women and fights over personal status or perceived slights. How do you suggest this violence can be reduced, since you're so keen to do so? Do you think women play any role at all, given their often pivotal position in the fights starting in the first place?

As a young man I saw lots of young women playing one man off against another then appearing to be horrified (and of course, titillated) when violence "just happened". Do those young women have any responsibility for the outcome, or is their role purely as icon?

Oh dear. I see that you have now resorted to freshly minting quotes for me, Antiseptic.

>>Pericles rather silly view that "women are little and weak, while men are big and strong" should never be an excuse for them to expect to be able to act out that violence.<<

Here is what I actually said about relative physical strengths - specifically, I might add, in the context of the Waterstreet story:

"If she were an Amazon, and he a nine-stone weakling, I might have more sympathy with your judgement."

When you continued to chirp about the unfairness of it all, I was forced to point out that:

"Women, as has been observed over the centuries, have been physically less strong than men. That's across the board, not picking out individual women body-builders or seven-stone-weakling men who get sand kicked in their face."

...which I expanded on as follows:

"...it means that even today, men are expected to exercise greater restraint when they feel the urge to hit a women, than women are when they are driven by emotional hurt to take a swipe at their man."

You continued to misconstrue, in order presumably to boost your own agenda...

>>Pericles, I must say I thought you had more substance... The idea of the “frail little woman” is so Victorian as to be laughable.<<

At which point I was forced to object to your tactics of putting words into my mouth:

"I agree, totally laughable. It is, however, your interpretation, not mine. Read again what I actually wrote, as opposed to what you think I wrote, and tell me which part you disagree with."

An observation that still stands.

What, exactly, is your problem?

Pericles:"I see that you have now resorted to freshly minting quotes for me, Antiseptic."

Not at all, I was simply paraphrasing your view as I couldn't be bothered trawling through your posts to quote you. I think I got the flavour right, despite your protestations. Your own quotes back my opinion in that matter.

You might note that I apologised some days back for denigrating your opinion that men are under an obligation not to hit women. That doesn't mean I think it's OK for them to hit men, using the same logical process and regardless of their size. a small woman hitting a big man because she knows he can't hit back is just as gutless as a big man hitting a small woman.

What's your problem with that?

Back online for a little bit.

Lexi some input the the comments you made recently about researcher objectivity. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4912#131505

I came across a bit on the topic when I was trying vanna's challenge about feminist academics and positive comments about men some time back.

Not sure how much that you've looked into the topic before but it is interesting to read what's been written by some feminists about feminist research. I've not seen much that refutes what's expressed in the following links, they do appear to be legitimate discussions on the topic by feminists.

A good article at http://www.unb.ca/par-l/win/feminmethod.htm

"Feminist research must not be abstract and removed from the subject of investigation but instead must have a commitment to working towards societal change."

"Feminist research is, by definition, research that utilizes feminist concerns and beliefs to ground the research process. Feminism takes women as its starting point, seeking to explore and uncover patriarchal social dynamics and relationships from the perspective of women."

Also http://www.aare.edu.au/99pap/gar99199.htm "Traditional interviewing practices create problems for feminist researchers whose primary aim is towards the validation of women's subjective experiences as women and as people."

A search on women's subjective experiences and feminist research can also be interesting.

I don't think that the expectation that feminist researchers are trying to return objective results holds. It does not appear to be part of the paradigm. Something that those looking at the output of feminist research might not get if they've not looked at it.

The search to validate women's subjective experience seems to be quite happy to invalidate men's objective and subjective as men.

R0bert

Dear RObert,

As I've stated in the past - inevitably, researchers,
like anyone else, (male or female)
will be guilty of some measure of bias -
the tendency, often unconscious, to interpret facts
according to one's own values. Nobody is denying that.
This problem occurs in all sciences, but it becomes
particularly acute in the social sciences, whose
subject matter often involves issues of deep human and
moral concern.

How can this problem be resolved? I've covered that in
my earlier post - regarding objectivity.

However, total objectivity is probably impossible to
achieve in any science, since some bias is always
unconscious. But a self-conscious effort to be as
objective as possible will produce vastly less biased
results than not making this attempt.

And if objectivity is defined as thought sufficienetly
disciplined to minimise the distortions caused by
personal bias, then it is certainly possible.

The pursuit of objectivity does not necessarily mean
that researchers should not express personal opinions,
or value judgements. However, they are required by
their departments that these judgements should be
clearly labeled as such and that they should not
intrude into the actual process of research and
interpretation.

It would be perfectly legitimate, therefore, for a
researcher to give as objective an account as possible
of a social problem, and then to add a subjective
judgement - provided that the judgement was presented
as a matter of personal opinion.

How many women are feminists.
Is it half, no more, most like life as it is.
And most have the ability to make it as they want.
Anti you and I are in trouble, our detractors think putting thoughts and words in our mouth we do not hold, is ok.
And seemingly no woman EVER hit ANY man.
And if she did he had it coming.

Then you should not have used quotation marks, Antiseptic.

>>I was simply paraphrasing your view as I couldn't be bothered trawling through your posts<<

"Paraphrasing", especially in such a casual and inaccurate manner, is simply the way you use to slant my views so that you can address them. Which you would not have been able to do, had you used my actual words.

It's a matter of courtesy, apart from anything else.

And credibility, of course.

>>a small woman hitting a big man because she knows he can't hit back is just as gutless as a big man hitting a small woman.<<

You have made your view perfectly clear. However, it is not one I can remotely agree with, having seen the substantial physical damage a big man can cause to a small woman, and the trivial, temporary hurt a small woman can cause to a big man.

As I said at the outset, it is a matter of context.

Ah, Pericles, as always a sniper from self-constructed "cover". If only it were less flimsy...

Lexi:"inevitably, researchers,
like anyone else, (male or female)
will be guilty of some measure of bias"

Which is why the scientific method exists. It removes the potential for bias by imposing a higher standard of evidence, which includes the obligation to try to DISprove the proposition that has been put forward. Once that obligation to try to falsify the proposition has been removed, then the credibility of any conclusions relying on that proporsition is also suspect.

This is known as "begging the question" and is contra-scientific.

Feminism relies on begging the qusetion to exist.

Dear Antiseptic,

Thank You for supporting what I had stated earlier.
When research is published, other researchers can assess
the findings and attempt to verify them by repeating the
research to see if it yields the same results. This
procedure provides an extremely effective check against
bias and other distortions.

As for what "feminists" on any other group relies on.
I really wouldn't make sweeping statements
about any particular group. There are individual differences
even in groups. And, especially when you object
to that very premise being made about violence and men.
You're then doing the very thing that you're objecting
to.

Pericles <"You have made your view perfectly clear. However, it is not one I can remotely agree with, having seen the substantial physical damage a big man can cause to a small woman, and the trivial, temporary hurt a small woman can cause to a big man."

Exactly my point as well, but much better written.
When we start getting large numbers of men arriving at hospital emergency departments, having been severely hurt by women, and the women themselves aren't also admitted, half dead or in a morgue, then maybe I will believe we have the problem Antiseptic and Belly believe we have.

Antiseptic, we were discussing a physical altercation between a man and a woman on this thread, and not the obvious fact that anyone can goad anyone else into becoming violent though an argument. The fact remains that it is not the verbal 'initiator' of arguments who ends up in jail for physically hurting someone else.

The fact remains that most people have a free will and can decide for themselves whether they will initiate violence on the basis of an argument, or whether to be adult and intelligent about the matter, and walk away.

Robert, are you suggesting that all researchers of violence in our society are either female and/or feminist?
That's a bit of a stretch isn't it?

Lexi is correct in asserting that all researchers have a right to make what they will of their own research.
If there are any glaring problems or falsehoods in the statistics, then surely they could find some anti-feminist researchers to point out the truth, and prove it?

Just because someone goes to university does not make them a feminist, and even if they are, it does not mean they will give biased reporting on their research.

Suse, the point is simple: if a woman hits a man she is entirely dependent on his goodwill in not hitting back.

The fact that some men don't exercise that good will should be reason enough for women to exercise the restraint in the first place and not stike men.

Moreover, the fact that most men do exercise that good will and that our society expects it means that a woman who takes advantage of that is being at best cowardly. I used the analogy earlier of kicking a dog when it's been muzzled.

It's interesting that both you and Pericles advocate so strongly for the unchallenged right of women to strike men as and when they please.

On the subject of escalation, you seem to be suggesting that women are the principal initiators of arguments that may spin out of control into violence. You're probably right, which is why they should be concerned about the way such escalation occurs and thus take control of their own situation instead of leaving it entirely up to someone else to do so.

Lexi, I don't support what you said at all in the case of research informed by a feminist perspective. The whole point is that there is NO effort to falsify any hypotheses and much effort to cherrypick data and sample sets to confirm prejudices. Conflicting data is not examined and very often the whole point is to "prove" that some form of additional support for women is vitally needed.

Antiseptic <"It's interesting that both you and Pericles advocate so strongly for the unchallenged right of women to strike men as and when they please. "

Lol! Where on earth have either of us ever said such a stupid thing on this site Antiseptic? What a load of rubbish.
I have said many times that I abhor violence against and by ANYONE, and you know it.

You are trying to say that if women only just shut their mouths and not 'provoke' violence in men, then all would be ok?
Yeah right!
How many times are people hit or bashed for NO reason at all then?
Often some people are just in the wrong place and never provoked
anyone.
We have all met people who are violently angry for no real reason at all...

Should all men shut their provoking mouths also, in order not to be beaten up by other men then?
What utter piffle!

Dear Antiseptic,

In today's modern society there are many alternative
lifestyles and roles that are acceptable for both men
and women. Our society is individualistic and highly
open to change and experimentation, and in it men and
women can explore a wide variety or possible roles,
and choices. They are not as constrained as people
were of a generation ago. It's a society in which all possible
options should be open and equally acceptable for both sexes.

Today a person's individual human qualities rather
than their biological sex should be the primary measure of that
person's worth and achievement.

See you on another thread. It's been interesting.

Football talent scouts could do worse than seek out Suseonline.
My game thrives on side step seeming to flick pass the ball while hanging on to it.
If I am not seeing denial women hit men I have lost the plot.
References to education family and formal, neglect totally we can not educate respect o even good manners in to every one.
Parents, every day,ask how did we go wrong, as well bought up kids run off the rails.
Life is like that,the thought, that in some way, Antiseptic and I are bigoted, or constructing lies, is fun.
But descriptive too, SOME WOMEN , SOME MEN are grubs!
ALL DV is a crime, but thinking without debating the whole issue we can educate or breed it out is wrong.
Behind this issue many different reasons exist.
Strange but the second husband of SOME women are more likely to be CONTROLLED if not abused as a way of what? keeping them?

Suseonline:"Should all men shut their provoking mouths also, in order not to be beaten up by other men then?
What utter piffle!"

erm...

Yes alright then Antiseptic, I agree my English wasn't too good in that particular sentence.
It should have read as: <"Should all men shut their provoking mouths also, in order not to be beaten up by other men then?
What utter piffle you write, Antiseptic!"

There now, that's much better , and oh so true...

I think I have also had enough of this thread now.
See you all on another thread xx

As a man, Suse, I can tell you that men are very used to biting their tongues to avoid provoking others. This is a standard part of most young men's lives and that's not a bad thing. It's called "restraint" and you sem to expect men to exercise it and women not to be able to.

As I said, you expect men to behave like adults and women to be able to act like children.

Sus seems you do not like men?
Sorry but you are talking rubbish.
The female I am right but I am wrong rubbish.
You know the final word then storm out the door rubbish.
Stuff men hold in, do not react to, that only opens the tap more.
SOME WOMEN, content they have force fed their views, never know, they just earn a reputation that kills any respect for anything they say.
Hidden from them but still true, *just ignore her and she will go away*
Antiseptic we are just bad boys, how dare we? what right have we? to introduce truth in to this debate.
I like to think, point less denial, in part, proves our point.
A denial is on display here, that woman could be human, have the same faults as men.

Lexi:"Today a person's individual human qualities rather
than their biological sex should be the primary measure of that
person's worth and achievement."

Perhaps they should, but as long as the dominant paradigm is informed by a feminist perspective then men will be treated as second-class. Young men already have just half the chance of attending uni that young women do and they will face barriers to full participation all of their lives. Women receive preferential treatment with the APS as a matter of public service policy and that is being forced upon our public companies as well.

In nearly every aspect of social policy men are either ignored, or men's interests are deliberately discouraged if there is any perceived female interest in the same issue.

Even simply suggesting that women should exercise restraint in their dealings is "piffle" according to your friend suse, while she is so used to men doing so that she simply doesn't recognise it yet takes it for granted, just as a child does with its parents.

Apparently she thinks that men never do so, which is yet another triumph of feminist ideology over (admittedly rather low-wattage in her case) brainpower.

Belly, don't get too bothered by all this. I'm afraid that Suse and Pericles are simply products of their rather narrow social conditioning. Pericles rather quaint views are straight out of a Victorian romance novel and Suze's sound like a Mills and Boon written by Germaine Greer (without all that messy sex with young boys stuff though, Suse won't have any of that, thanks very much!).

It's when such people are challenged on those views that the rigidity in their thinking gets tested and that can be painful for them.

Dear Anti,

I have a great deal more to say on this subject.
However, I prefer not to do so because frankly
it would be a waste of my time - and I am very busy
at the moment. Also although I do enjoy having a
discussion - I don't consider this thread as even coming
close. I shall leave you and Belly to share your opinions
and thoughts. Suse and I will
wisely - go onto another thread. BTW - you and Belly
should not put your interpretations onto what Suse (or
any one else) says. You should actually read the posts -
and try to comprehend what's being said (and why) - and not give
us your version of it.

Cheers.

Lexi, I'm trying to work out what your views are, but they seem to change in every post. Perhaps you should try to work out what they are for yourself?

Anti such is the nature of male/female relation ships
Lexi, a poster I admire,tells us not to do as she does.
Not to take her words and read other things, but she does that with us.
Maybe we are wrong, it may best be to adopt the standard male response.
Yes dear, our only answer then skip down to the pub and share our views.
I can not remember, did we say something wrong.
They all women bash husbands, all husbands are saints.
Just how did we get in to this.
I know only this,you can not win, such debates may as well be held with the rolling pin as you wash up after making the scones.
Well not me, I would help maybe cook but will to death, be amused by those insisting black is white.
No Woman ever bashed any man ok?
Every woman is good every man not ok
yes dear!
Just taking the dog for a short walk dear.[ pubs not that far away]

Not wanting to stir this pot at all, I can't help but mention the item in todays news about the women who threw her 8 mth old dog out a 15th story window.

I know it's not manly , but I love my dog, because my dog loves me despite all my shortcomings. My family and I share our love for each other. All achieved without feminist theorem.

Our dog decides who he likes and doesn't like, he approaches unknown males with one eye cocked, he approaches unknown females with his unequivocal loving side on display.

The dog in question (in the news) may have been expected to serve his mistresses ego, failed, and got thrown out the window as a result. Maybe it was a demonstration of her voracity in the the argument she was having, or maybe female-dom is not that perfect after all. Let's see what happens in sentencing.

Whilst my dog seems to understand the difference between males and females, we it seems don't, as we try to produce ( from our own pre-percepetions), more men like women and more women like men, for no apparent useful purpose.

Frankly I don't understand why we are even bothering with this pastime. By all means and absolutely, let both genders respect each other, understanding and appreciating their respective differences, and let nature take it's course, because it will in the end anyway.

Thinker 2 I saw the story, in fact could post ten times a day such story's.
But it is not worth while and just maybe unfair.
I can not spell the name of that first man whole looked at the human psychology.
But even here, in both sex's, the differences and preconceived ideas we have can be seen.
I could not live with out women, but can not avoid the differences, that post above is true.
It is how, most men, after a while,regard confrontation with the woman in their life.
We men DO put women on a pedestal.
For an increasing number women want and expect it.
But in increasing numbers SOME want total control too.
SOME develop that wish to belief they can hit men, and that men can not hit back, because you must take but not give punishment from a woman.
I offer these differences in defense of my view not all females are the same.
SOME Muslim women walk behind a husband like slaves, even considering hitting him would bring death.
SOME Indian women still are burnt to death ,yes it still takes place, with dead husbands.
Prisons, world wide, have women who killed, no one can claim ,for any sex, sainthood.

someone quoted..""Lexi:"Today
a person's individual human qualities rather
than their biological sex..should be the primary measure of that
person's worth and achievement."""

i cant read that..without knowing
lexie has acceptred to be silenced
just like suzie before her

is this because of biological sexism
or because our vairiant opinion's differ
according to our current sex status[sexual stasis]

i like mr bell..love that opposing sex
when we are acting in harmony..

but having seen the face of pure evil
over-lay that face..of pure lust..

that overlays..all the other things
inherantly sexual..relitivisms

[sister..wife/mother/lover...other
unmentionable fun..others..according to sexual bent]

anyhow i feel we are each lost
in our sexualised prejudgments

if only everything
that looked good
was all good

if only love
was really about living in love
not dying from hate..[or love...'of hate']

i dont know its all too deep
for me

i would beg the beloved others to return
to stand up like a man[not erect]..to return and take it like a man

cause if its only us men
i just KNOW..we will get it all wrong

who has nuthing
has everything..to gain

thus he who has
has nuthin except everything..left
to loose...as we ourselves must chose..[according to your bent]

ya notice how much what we got
depends on who is on top..[t.o.p]

if i need to explain
your not imaginative enough
2b on top...[heck im not just a row-bot]

im not woeman..ignore my gutteral roar
if im not giving you enough touch
stop touching me too hard

push me once..shame on you
push me more..same shame on me
i knew it was cummin..but thought it wernt that important

at the time
but now in hindsight
its all about power..and who feels powerless

the diss-empowerd..got nuthin left to loose
stikeout on your own..before you stike back

leave
run away
its what girls do
men just take it like a man

ben dover

OUG! an extraordinary post, true and it got to depths and things we may not be free to talk about here.
I am a simple bloke, not driven by ego, or cares what others think of me.
Unless they think I let them down.
So proud to be me, told my views made make *High Maintenance* in my life's love Union/Party I say always, what I think.
I never ever judge a woman on her sex, in fact the best women in my life know, I gave them control in almost every thing in life, but not my right, or did I challenge theirs, to be a man/woman.
We are different, women mature earlier often much faster, men act impulsively, often benefiting from a womans hand.
I suspect OUG, you like me, have seen a side of life it is unlikely Lexi or Suseonline ever did.
No use lying, some men,some females are sub human.
Deep within our mental processes SOME are lacking balance respect, honesty under standing.
The defense put up, a form of *Not Me Mate*, not women just can not be right.
I have seen a woman, dump her CHILDREN by the roadside, three sub 10 years, middle of the night.
60 KLM from any one and drive away.
A fact, not one of us humans can claim ALL are caring.
I know OUG of women who [often it is after a relationship ends] pick a weak second husband.
And control even hit and bash them.
ALL DV is gutless.
All a crime, and all should be treated under law the same way,why different for women??
If it is different then it is a crime against men.

i like to think..i know suzie and lexies souls
and am reasonably sure they..are not of the type..[we are discussing]

they are wise and stong
without a need to hurt/revenge..or whatever
the 'others'..chose to do..[simply cant concieve the insanity]

we are lucky..*they spend some time
raising the bar...of the..[lol].weaker sex*
[certainly..*not any olo's posters]..[male or femail]

but the victims of the insanity..[of any sex]
who experienced it's betrayal
[im guessing..

*we..are more than a few]

and its only because..of that[the strrong]..avoiding
the doing of the vile...those..able to resist..that temptation..
*they cant fully grasp..that of us

hurt by deliberated intention..to make us suffer
be it erant social conditioning/revenge..or just spite...meaness

there are those..
who cant get it right
[so lacking the will..or the word-skills..[or the love]
..refuse to listen..or explain..or reason..[their..haunted by haters]

chosing instead
to fight/hurt strike back blindly/midlessly
at that person..REPRESENTING..the one*..what first hurt them

[or something like that]

its a shame..we cant speak honestly
about the things..we know..

but heck
im a man

and men dont cry
we dont whine..we cant win
we just stand there..and take it on the chin[or the shin]
or the face or the knutts..or in the guts..or just the swift kick in the ring gear

victims..*can/do..use code
but woman..read between the lines

instead of decoding..the code..[oh ode to the code]
its only cause..even most men dont know it..
that the..'others'..dont know it either

who ever said torture works
dont know about the code!

OUG, the "haters" exist everywhere, but they only prosper when there are enablers.

That was the point of my original post: this woman was allowed to vent her spleen on this man unchecked by a crowd of onlookers, to the tune of 20 blows and there was never any suggestion that she should be held accountable, even by Mr Waterstreet, a noted Sydney (left-wing) barrister.

The enablers are "nice", but they look on with approval when one of the girls strikes out. They "would never do anything like that", but they're happy to watch someone else do it, as long as they're of the right gender, of course.

Hypocrites and cowards.

Antiseptic, "The enablers are "nice", but they look on with approval when one of the girls strikes out"

Not sure that it's generally approval, perhaps a quiet "tut, tut", thinking that he probably deserved it but that she could have handled it a bit more discretely. My impression is that most think that women are unlikely to do much real harm so it does not matter too much rather than explicitly approving of the violence.

They try to pretend that support is there when men need it and do what they can to deny claims to the contrary when men voice them. The enablers want to speak up and count when it comes to stopping violence against women but are not so keen to look at the evidence when it does not support what they already believe. Other than a couple of general attacks on CTS there has been pretty much no attempt to refute the stats we've referenced over a lot of years. Mostly either attacks on men for referencing those stats or appeals to figures which are heavily influenced by social perceptions about DV, eg police arrest rates or people claiming to be victims of DV when being admitted to hospital.

Sometimes after a long series of posts claiming that women are much more likely than men to be the victims of all sorts of DV (including emotional abuse) there is a grudging admittance that the numbers are similar then a fall back to serious injury rates.

The enablers are intellectually lazy, they grew up with a picture in their heads of what DV looked like and are not willing to let anything challenge that picture. I grew up with that same picture and it wasn't until I was faced with a lack of support that I started to look into what was wrong with the picture.

R0bert

Anti can you move over?
We may need to find room for this Author on the naughty boys bench
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/blogs/modern-times/really-women-bash-men-20110306-1bjpl.html
I think any one who contributed to this thread would be interested in this link.

R0bert:"it wasn't until I was faced with a lack of support that I started to look into what was wrong with the picture. "

You and me both, brother. From a brief perusal of the popular press commentary I'd say that our experience is fast becoming the "dominant paradigm" for fathers who have to endure a contentious divorce, especially when the mother claims violence exists, regardless of evidenciary support.

Lots of men are coming to realise that feminism is all about having your cake and eating it as well and that has to be paid for by men.

That's what the enablers are achieving, whatever their motivations.

Belly, there's lots of room on the bench. Besides, everyone knows the girls all want a naughty boy to punish.

We anti too all know not every woman is like that.
Slapping and bashing I mean.
But must note we are alone, silence comes from a wish to look at both sides of an issue that needs a look.

i hate to bring things to the 'personal level'
but a case in point...is truelly real[somewhere in these great lands]

we have a single mother...raising the second son
[after the first escaped her clutches at 15]

i sat by and watched silently...the workings
[goings on]..of yust a few hourse just yesterday

the poor ten year old male..[mowed the front yard [wrongly]
so had to mow it twice...[he once was made to trim the edges with sizzzers]

i watched [and helped]..was the dog
[wriongly]..thus HE was made to do it twice
earlier he had friends arround...[they used a sprinkler'with peermission'..but then exceeded the quota of towels used..and was further abused..

later he was told to turn on the bbq..[and clean it
and cook potatoes and oinions on it...and when these had been cooked put the meat on without being told..and was insulted and VERBALLY assulted..extensivly for that...

further yelling made him have a shower
and go to bed[at 7 pm]...i have left out a few other lesser incidents
while he [badly]..cleaned out the garage...and other stuff that occured when i went home 3 times biting my tongue..

that was but one day in a ten year olds life
yep single mothers..they got it rough

tough
men haters...
hate boy men..as much as the men they reject

one day in hell
just 0ne astory of millions of stories
but heck this was just one day[oh moove the trampoline...hang up the washing..how dare you use all my towels..no wonder im washing all the time

but heck
she didnt hit him
and any mug that thinks they can but in between mother and son

well mate forget it[or try to]
yes i know we pick our parents
so even at the spiritual level

its all just karma
for one to be forced to endure endless sufference

one hasnt learned the lesson
[so help]..whats the lesson i gotta learn
[stay away from man haters..but how would i know who is who

pr teasing?
abbsessive addictions to booze pills?

why are they alone?
heck back to the silent mode
im over trying to wisper in code

All becomes clearer, Antiseptic.

>>I'd say that our experience is fast becoming the "dominant paradigm" for fathers who have to endure a contentious divorce, especially when the mother claims violence exists, regardless of evidenciary support.<<

I'm sorry to hear of your bad experience with a woman. But it does make your position that much more understandable. It is usually called "generalizing from the particular", and tends to result in a somewhat unique-to-the-individual view of the topic.

I hope you have better luck next time.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/07/feminism-domestic-violence-men
This link has more substance than my last.
It too has much more substance than the it is not true mob.
Written by a woman and in a leading British news paper it does not attempt to ignore men out number women abusers, maybe.
OUG deep, know only too well what you say is true.
Look first at the self esteem of such women.
Too at the deep within the mind reason they seek CONTROL.
The mind all minds, work wonders and create monsters.
Such a woman is unsexy, and for those able to think, not likely to find ever, the right man.
The real beauty, one money can not buy is within most women, some are unable to let it flow.
I will make room for you on the naughty boys bench too, see Truth is not to be spoken if it reminds us some Princesses are in fact not so nice.

http://home.earthlink.net/~elnunes/abuse.htm
I know this women.
She exists and has many like her.
She has men just as bad, maybe worse.
But to say she does not exist is to refuse truth.

Pericles:"generalizing from the particular"

I dispute that. I have not sought to generalise in any way. In fact, I've had to drag the discussion back on track several times when others have sought to generalise.

Do feel free to apologise for misrepresenting my views.

Or don't, it's of no moment

I understand I am talking in an empty room.
But feel I need to, and that the thread left wounds on all who contributed but gave no answers.
I,remember we all get it wrong, maybe I am, saw evidence some women refuse to even contemplate men are SOME TIMES TREATED UNEQUALLY.
At the bad boy,aging one now,end of the bench, as anti said no shortage of company drove my thoughts.
I was never against equality, never a fan of extremes, including feminism.
But how can we not see women both stand on the pedestal, and demand it, then SOME, INCREASING NUMBERS use that to abuse and miss use men.
I have seen anti get a bit rough,but seen too, him jumped on for just telling the truth.
Are all men products of unwed parents because SOME BASH?
Then how an we avoid looking at the lower end of the female sex.
I understand my links did not all play fair, know this,not every man is a tower of strength, a hard man.
SOME women pick the weak, abuse and miss use them ,yes bash them, SOME of those men beg for help,and no one believes they could be telling the truth.
Men are from Mars women from Venus, some,from both sex's are from HELL.
If I after 5 court orders took off with my kids never let the mum see them again I would be branded dog, rightfully too.
Mum? she one of thousands will never be charged, see men are Bar*^&ds
Women,good looking ones , always Angels.
Open debate on any subject but not one about Angels ok?

I'm certainly not going to apologize for disagreeing with you, Antiseptic.

>>Pericles:"generalizing from the particular" I dispute that. I have not sought to generalise in any way. In fact, I've had to drag the discussion back on track several times when others have sought to generalise. Do feel free to apologise for misrepresenting my views.<<

Your views are not misrepresented in any way. You have done nothing but generalize throughout the entire thread. Right from your opening post:

>>He described a scene at an art exhibition opening he attended... Is violence directed toward men by women really such an entrenched part of our society that nobody pays it any attention?<<

You took a single incident, reported by a third party, in order to generalize about a supposed entrenched culture of women-on-men violence. And you have continued in the same vein for a whole fortnight.

Right down to the post that initiated my observation:

>>I'd say that our experience is fast becoming the "dominant paradigm" for fathers who have to endure a contentious divorce, especially when the mother claims violence exists, regardless of evidenciary support<<

In this case, you use your own particular situation to draw your generalized conclusions.

It happens. Women occasionally slap men. If it causes you pain, walk away. Find someone else, if you need to. And accept that even in the enlightened age in which we live, it is still far easier for the man to do so, than it is for the woman.

Or is that also a "quaintly Victorian patriarchal notion"?

Seems I am just going to be ignored anti, you I see are still being targeted with puffs of air, thrown from afar.
Difficult this, I thought we you I others had a point, first that all DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS WRONG.
And that some women, more than most think, are as bad as any.
I may have avoided a few things, in saying yes being female gets them off lightly.
Like haveing a short skirt or deep drop top on saves speeding fines.
But alas we have gone too far, actually asking for full equality for women.
Never mind they are not all like that.
Narcissist, controlling, man users I mean.

Pericles:"accept that even in the enlightened age in which we live, it is still far easier for the man to do so, than it is for the woman."

And your evidence for this is?

ICB.
Belly:"I thought we you I others had a point, first that all DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS WRONG.:"

Apparently, according to Pericles, it's only wrong when men respond to the violence of women.

I hope he never gets disabused of his quaint notion.

Oh please, Antiseptic, you're rather scraping the barrel here, and beginning to look a little pathetic.

>>Apparently, according to Pericles, it's only wrong when men respond to the violence of women.<<

You know perfectly well that I said no such thing.

And you sound so much like my whiny elder brother, it's uncanny. He used to regularly complain to my mother that she told him off more often for hitting me, that me for hitting him.

"You're bigger than him" she used to say, "and anyway you're older, you should know better"

She would always add "...and stop tormenting your brother, Pericles, you know what will happen."

Amazingly, he never got around to forming an Older Brother Victims Unit, where he could forever compare notes with other tormented big brothers, and where they would all whinge to their heart's content about how terribly unfair it was.

Probably because he grew up.

Oh dear, Pericles, talk about "generalising from the particular". Sounds to me as though you have some unresolved issues with your brother.

Never mind, I'm sure you'd never let anything like personal experience affect your views...

Men Bash Women slap?
I want to be rude, include a true story again.
Small village three women too unwed one wed.
All rather friendly, nice looking well presented but well friendly.
Overly so, Husband? hand picked good in come fair home he owned and easy to control.
He was bashed, no not hit, often.
And made to go for long walks if the three girls wanted to entertain.
The happy trio broke up in time Husband lost his home to wife, but is not bashed any more, one of the singles found a man like her Friend moved away, wounder if she owns his house now?
Other two, time has not been kind.
Seems I must be stretching it, woman do not do things like that ask Queen Victoria.

"and anyway you're older, you should know better"

and that's one of the clinchers in this. Not just about size but there is a degree of paternalism in the issue where men are considered to "know better". In some minds women are considered less able to control their emotions and responses.

"Amazingly, he never got around to forming an Older Brother Victims Unit, where he could forever compare notes with other tormented big brothers, and where they would all whinge to their heart's content about how terribly unfair it was."

Perhaps if Pericles had ever been in the situation of having a physically violent spouse and seen how difficult it is to get support in getting the violence stopped or to leave and keep some of his life together he might be somewhat more understanding.

This isn't about kid's thinking the other gets a better deal, it's a very real situation where both parties are treated very differently, not just in minor issues but with significant consequences.

R0bert

Wrong way round as usual, Antiseptic.

>>Sounds to me as though you have some unresolved issues with your brother.<<

It is he who has the problem, not me. As you would expect, under the circumstances.

>>Never mind, I'm sure you'd never let anything like personal experience affect your views<<

Well you see, that's where you are wrong. The views I have expressed on this thread entirely reflect my personal experience. But I don't take one instance, one event, one issue, and use it to brand the entire category, as you have.

PERICLES I very much differ with you here, like or despise me I find you balanced poster, not on this subject however.
I am aware in other threads anti has been out there, but too that his style changed quite a bit.
In this thread he has sinned by? telling the truth.
Looking back at this thread in say 30 years some will look in wounder.
From about 1960 Male Female relationships have been in constant change.
The standard issue Australian working class family of that year no longer exists.
Husband out with the boys wife at home with the kids.
Women increasingly are leading the relation ships, a story told by one of Pauline Hanson's past husbands tells in part of that.
Thinking he was in a two way loving relation ship he came home and found her written plans to leave him, and just how much of his money she expected to take.
Your world may be different than mine, but it is far from rare in some rural areas,can it always be the man.
Men, hand picked as controllable, second husbands often, get bashed, not slapped bashed,sticks any tool at hand, for some a tool bought and kept for that reason.
Police, sometimes in the bush being entertained by the aggressor, act far less in women vs man assaults.
We today, are at the very start of a time we in this country must confront a growing concern, if in that 30 years as I hope and believe we will we are to see this real issue and resolve it.
In this country today a woman will win 2 out of 3 children's court battles even if it was them, not the man who is at fault.
Headlong race for feminism victory over men, not equality will back fire in time.

Pericles:"It is he who has the problem, not me."

Of course it is...

Pericles:"I don't take one instance, one event, one issue, and use it to brand the entire category"

Oh dear, and you probably won't even see the contradiction in your own comment. Never mind, at least Mum loves you more than your brother, eh? Or something like that. What exactly does your brother have to do with the topic again?

R0bert: "there is a degree of paternalism in the issue "

I'd say that there's a whole lot of paternalism. Or perhaps it's maternalism in some cases, such as Pericles's whine about his brother.

R0bert:"In some minds women are considered less able to control their emotions and responses."

That is the nub of the matter. Men are expected to act like adults, while women are allowed to behave like children with little consequence for the bad outcomes that behaviour may produce, secure in the knowledge that if there's a man involved, he's likely to be the one to bear any blame.

You have always come across as a straight-shooter Belly, no need to worry on that score.

>>PERICLES I very much differ with you here, like or despise me<<

But I'm afraid that I can't agree that there is a feminist conspiracy under way along the lines of your description...

>>Headlong race for feminism victory over men...<<

You - and Antiseptic, and R0bert - may have been unlucky in your relationship choices, or even simply in the company you keep, but that doesn't mean that you can tar the entire gender with the same brush. To do so is actually a form of surrender - people can tell when others are afraid of them, and take advantage accordingly. That's not just a female thing, it is a basic, animal trait.

I still maintain that if you treat people with respect, you will be treated respectfully in return. And if your lady gets emotional and takes a swipe at you when she finds out that you have been chatting up another bit on the side (Antiseptic's original example), then you suck it up and take it like a man - if that expression has any meaning left on this thread.

It still astounds me that such a trivial incident has morphed into an ongoing, seemingly endless, fear-laden treatise on the cruelty of women towards men.

But I'll give you one thing. Love most definitely is blind, if your example is anything to go by:

>>Women increasingly are leading the relation ships, a story told by one of Pauline Hanson's past husbands tells in part of that. Thinking he was in a two way loving relation ship he came home and found her written plans to leave him, and just how much of his money she expected to take.<<

Not just blind in this case, but deaf and in a vegetative state as well, I'd suggest.

You forget quickly, don't you Antiseptic.

>>What exactly does your brother have to do with the topic again?<<

I'll remind you.

"...you sound so much like my whiny elder brother, it's uncanny."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4912#131931

Makes sense now?

Pericles:"Makes sense now?"

It always did; the resentment is palpable. I'm sorry I remind you of your elder brother, although I must say he sounds like an entirely reasonable sort of chap in seeking some equivalence in the punishment meted out to the pair of you, whilst your mother sounds like a tyrant of a rather nasty sort. Is that where you learnt to enjoy being hit by women? I'm glad that's working out well for you.

As for the rest of your rather feeble rant, this is about the fact that this woman felt free to beat this man in public and that nobody intervened. These were not feeble slaps. to quote Mr Waterstreet:"Each blow to the face came from a hand launched from behind her hipline with a thud."

Now that might give you warm memories of Mum beating your older brother, but to others of us it's a rather nasty assault carried out in public. Why should she not moderate her response? Why should she feel free to act like the juvenile Pericles and expect no due consequence to flow from her action?

That's pretty pathetic, Antiseptic.

>>Is that where you learnt to enjoy being hit by women?<<

Even for you.

And this is just even sillier:

>>...that might give you warm memories of Mum beating your older brother<<

She never laid a hand on either of us - tell me, is there a form of transference happening here? Are there other, deeper reasons for your fear of women than just wives?

>>...this is about the fact that this woman felt free to beat this man in public and that nobody intervened.<<

I couldn't agree more.

She slapped him. He accepted that he was in the wrong, and took it in his stride. You even made the valid point yourself that Waterstreet "has a notable gift for the trivialities". It was a trivial incident, that you have managed to turn into a crusade against women in general.

Feel free to pile on the insults, by the way, if it makes you feel better about yourself. Given the history that is slowly emerging, you could probably use the therapy.

"You - and Antiseptic, and R0bert - may have been unlucky in your relationship choices, or even simply in the company you keep, but that doesn't mean that you can tar the entire gender with the same brush."

I most definitely don't tar the entire gender with the same brush. I don't think Antiseptic or Belly do that either (at worst we may use wording that can be misconstrued by those wanting to shut down genuine debate).

A proportion of women use violence against partners to control them or because of poor control of their responses as do a proportion of men. More women are seriously injured than men but the majority of domestic violence does not involve major physical injury to either party.

Most women of my experience have not been violent, same for most of the men I know. Now that I'm more aware of the issues around DV I've been more careful of the company I keep.

Violence that's not a defence against violence initiated by another is wrong regardless of the gender or size of the aggressor. The attempts by some to minimise the violence of individuals based on gender stereotypes perpetuates violence.

A more honest approach to violence by women will give their partners more options to get the violence stopped or leave without destroying their own lives. Minimisation of female violence severely limits the options available to their partners in those situations and may increase the likely hood of an eventual physical response if the violence is ongoing.

It's no more acceptable for a woman to assault a man because of something she believes he may have done or said (or which he may have actually done or said than it is for a man to use violence against a female partner for similar reasons).

R0bert

I earnestly hope that 30 years in the future I will not see, the explorer of this thread will live in a different world.
Ours has become a little remote from the one of past century's.
Mostly for the better, men and women of my age would remember the drunken abuse, Friday or Saturday nights a night mare for wife and kids.
We are better without that.
In my case, we kids said it then we say it now, Mum started the fights, she lit the fuse, needling drunken Dad till he smashed any thing on hand.
He never ever hit mum, or any one, except a neighbor interfering.
About the time of the sexual revolution,the pill, Women forced change, even that was not before time.
Right now? for about 20 years past and to day SOME WOMEN LEAD control, bash, use, miss use their men.
And here we see it said to be a lie?
No one said ALL MOST MANY, but to say it is untrue.
If I had my life over I would be very careful, not to wed.
Not to take on face value, no one, would say ever SOME MEN BASH AND USE WOMEN.
Betray the wife, but 30 years from now I hope we have turned around the need to control men totally SOME women have.
And that the requested by many women just gay enough men have not taken over.
Or that one of those country's that do not let female children grow up are not in charge.
IF denial of mens rights is the out come of feminism then lets get that fixed.

Pericles, out of the 6 men who have responded to this thread, you are the only one who is supportive of the right of women to use violence. While the sample is small, the result is clear: far from my view being "unique", it seems to be quite well supported, whilst your quaint notions are uniquely yours, it seems.

You base your view on the idea that men are stronger and that the woman, as the weaker person, can therefore use force that would see a man carted off to the watchhouse.

Tell me, do you also support the right of small men to use violence with impunity against larger ones? Should a bigger person always be held to a higher standard of behaviour than a smaller one? On what grounds?

As for insults, when you stop old boy, so will I. It's not often you find your standard fare of snide insinuation challenged, is it? Perhaps you'd do best to stick with Arjay's conspiracy threads: you seem to manage OK there. It's clear you're out of your depth when it comes to genuine discussion.

As one who has taken the white ribbon pledge,in a heart felt way.
As one who has time and again seen the worse side of SOME men SOME women I am baffled by the denials.
We all, the hard way, learn we get only trouble interfering in domestic fights, yet I have and will ,in defense of women.
I need not leave my family, for evidence of female abusing men,controlling them, hitting them.
We are not debating truth here.
But an insistence! that women are special, and better! than men.
Special? I agree, better?
Well than SOME MEN.
Antiseptic stay solid this is bad today but if we can not even talk about the need for fairness balance and change?
Why not a Blue ribbon day for men, a day the trouble and strife agrees to not hit kick or even takes the chain of for a day!

There is no "genuine debate" happening here, R0bert.

>>I most definitely don't tar the entire gender with the same brush. I don't think Antiseptic or Belly do that either (at worst we may use wording that can be misconstrued by those wanting to shut down genuine debate).<<

Just a couple of males generalizing about female-on-male "violence" - I put that in quotes, because as you point out, "the majority of domestic violence does not involve major physical injury to either party."

And as you go on to make clear, "More women are seriously injured than men"

So we have a situation which is pretty unbalanced from the start. Added to which, the example that we are invited to discuss involves no apparent injury. If it had, I am sure Waterstreet would have reported it, in the same mega-dramatic fashion... "before long, he was a mess of blood and tissue, spread across the floor".

From that less-than-injurious start, we have been invited to join a chorus of complaint as to how jolly unfair it all is, and how these ladies should exercise more restraint.

I stand accused of being "the only one who is supportive of the right of women to use violence". I'm clearly wasting my breath trying to point out that no-one, male or female has such a "right". Making the Waterstreet-reported event equivalent to being assaulted in your own home by a physically aggressive wife is not at all realistic.

I don't personally condone violence of any kind. I am only looking for some minuscule sense of perspective to be evident here. So far, I haven't seen any at all.

It has been an "all or nothing" approach, where the playing field is artificially levelled in order to satisfy some impractical notion of "justice".

Mountains. Molehills.

"I don't personally condone violence of any kind. "

No of course not.

"Awwwwww, the poor dear.

"Each blow to the face came from a hand launched from behind her hipline with a thud."

Being slapped by his lady.

I speculate that his crime was the oldest in the book, hence his protests...

"It was nothing, she was a friend."

Yeah, we all know what that means.

Sounds like he took his punishment like a man, though.

"He stood with his arms by his sides, like a soldier..."

It's all you can do, when you know you are in the wrong. Suck it up."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4912#131166

Quite clearly you do condone violence of at least one kind.

R0bert

I see that Pericles has skulked off without answering my simple questions:"do you also support the right of small men to use violence with impunity against larger ones? Should a bigger person always be held to a higher standard of behaviour than a smaller one? On what grounds? "

Hardly surprising: when the innuendo and insinuation doesn't work and the cheer squad is absent, he's got nothing to say. 'twere ever thus with those who prefer to jerk the knee than consider matters.

Of course, it may be that he has realised his basic error and prefers to hope that it won't be noticed by anyone, but that doesn't seem very likely.

The entire point as far as I am concerned, R0bert, is the mammoth fuss being made over the trivial incident, as reported.

I do not condone violence. It would clearly have been preferable if the young lady in question had said "now look here, old chap, let's sit down and have a nice little chat about your philandering ways". He would have hated that much more - you know, the dreaded "we need to talk" talk.

As far as I'm concerned, she gave him a slap. I do not consider that to be violence worth any serious consideration whatsoever. Certainly not the context in which it was subsequently considered on this thread.

You saw it as "violence", a generalization that allows you to give it the same weight as being attacked with a knife in your own kitchen by a vicious harridan who then makes off with your worldly goods. I do not consider that to be a reasonable parallel

Particularly as Waterstreet is not exactly famous for understatement.

Sorry, Antiseptic, was I ignoring you. I know how you hate that.

>>I see that Pericles has skulked off without answering my simple questions:"do you also support the right of small men to use violence with impunity against larger ones? Should a bigger person always be held to a higher standard of behaviour than a smaller one? On what grounds?"<<

No.

Happy?

Oh dear, Pericles, that's called "begging the question". I asked for your grounds, which I'm not surprised to see you haven't been able to provide. As I suspected, the whole "men are strong and women are weak" thing you've been hanging your hat on is no more than a red herring.

So what's your next faux "reason" for taking the position that women should be able to assault men with impunity if it's not based on power discrepancy? Could it be that you simply think women are less capable of self-control than men and thus should be given the latitude that we give children and adolescents to behave badly, while you think men are much more able to control their own impulses and hence should be held to account for not doing so?

Oh, come on Antiseptic. Surely you cannot be serious?

>>Oh dear, Pericles, that's called "begging the question". I asked for your grounds, which I'm not surprised to see you haven't been able to provide.<<

The answer I provided to your question was "no". What possible further grounds or justification does that require?

It goes like this:

>>do you also support the right of small men to use violence with impunity against larger ones?<<

No.

>>On what grounds?<<

On the grounds that no-one should have the right to use violence with impunity.

>>Should a bigger person always be held to a higher standard of behaviour than a smaller one?<<

No.

>>On what grounds?<<

Because both should be held to the same standard.

Now, my question to you: is your request for an opinion on male-on-male violence relevant, in a discussion on the topic of a girl slapping a guy at a party?

Incidentally, that is not an example of "begging the question".

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

Common mistake. Just thought I'd mention it.

http://www.marriagemissions.com/husband-abuse-can-a-wife-abuse-her-husband/
The link is well worth a look.
From a counseling service it appears to be Christian.
However the details do not hide the truth and highlight the softer type of man being the victim.
It is not avoiding the lack of balance in the way the sexes are seen by the law.

Pericles:"no-one should have the right to use violence with impunity."

Ah, really? When did you change your mind?

Pericles:"Incidentally, that is not an example of "begging the question"."

Of course it is: you made a statement with no grounds and expect that to stand as a given.

Simple mistake, glad to have cleared it up for you.

"You saw it as "violence", a generalization that allows you to give it the same weight as being attacked with a knife in your own kitchen by a vicious harridan who then makes off with your worldly goods. I do not consider that to be a reasonable parallel"

It is violence. I don't think that a slap should be given the same weight as being attacked with a knife in the kitchen or elsewhere but it's still violence. If you are on the receiving end of that violence on a regular basis it's still a real problem if options to end it are seriously limited by the consequences of a gendered portrayal of DV.

I do think that a slap should be given the same legal weight regardless of the gender or size of the parties involved, where it can be judged the force used should be a factor ( a slap leading to substantial bruising and or broken bones is different to a wake up to yourself slap ).

From the opening description of the incident in question "Each blow to the face came from a hand launched from behind her hipline with a thud." and "Twenty slaps, like rolling thunder."

and your take on it "As far as I'm concerned, she gave him a slap. I do not consider that to be violence worth any serious consideration whatsoever."

I wasn't at the wedding and am not familiar with Waterstreet but as the details of the incident have not been challenged they are the context that subsequent discussion has been based on.

R0bert

I guess that on the evidence so far, I had no right to expect you to understand such a complex concept, Antiseptic.

>>Pericles:"Incidentally, that is not an example of "begging the question"." Of course it is: you made a statement with no grounds and expect that to stand as a given.<<

Let's take a look at that for a moment.

"Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of 'reasoning' typically has the following form:

1. Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
2. Claim C (the conclusion) is true.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: 'X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true.'"

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

Now, think very carefully. Which aspect of my answer, "no", to your question ""do you also support the right of small men to use violence with impunity against larger ones?", fits the above explanation of begging the question?

Do you always lead with your chin?

Pericles:"Which aspect of my answer, "no", to your question ""do you also support the right of small men to use violence with impunity against larger ones?", fits the above explanation of begging the question?"

From Nizkor (one of my long-term favourite sites):
"1. Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
2. Claim C (the conclusion) is true."

It meets both criteria.
The premises are implicit in the response, which makes it circular as well.

I'm sure you'll be able to grasp it with a bit of thought.

How are the feet going with all those holes you've shot into them? At least you've got Antiseptic close at hand.

Baloney, Antiseptic.

>>The premises are implicit in the response, which makes it circular as well.<<

"No" is a stated premise?

Not on this planet.

Enjoy your blustering. It convinces no-one.

Not even yourself, probably.

Pericles:""No" is a stated premise?"

"Implicit" means "unstated, but implied". Glad to have got that sorted out for you old chap. Why don'tyou tell me how I remind you of your brother again? None of your argument seems to be based on anything beyond that.

Now, we've eliminated the red herring of size and strength as an justification for your claim that women should be able to hit men whenever they feel a bit emotional, so what's left? What's your next feeble attempt to justify your Victorian view going to be: "Mum liked me better than my brother and anyway you're not a real man, so there"?

What I find irksome about your little performance here Pericles, is that it has derailed what could have been a serious discussion about the role of social conditioning around issues affecting the genders differently.

I think you're more comfortable discussing conspiracy theories and religion - both areas in which you can make a pronouncement knowing that the view of those on the other side of the issue is based on no more than "faith" or on implausible chains of reasoning, meaning that red herrings and endless arguments about nothing at all are the standard. It's a shame you struggle so much on more serious issues.

You are a fascinating study, Antiseptic.

You know perfectly well - or you should, at least - the the response "no" to a request for an opinion is just that, an offered opinion. Trying to disguise your lapse of concentration in using "begging the question" incorrectly with a whole lot of blarney, convinces no-one. Here's "Grammar Girl", to help you out:

http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/begs-the-question.aspx

A tip, that may help, is that my answer "no" cannot be incorrect. You asked my opinion. I gave you my opinion. You may disagree with my opinion, but my opinion does not require any level of "proof", since the concept of proof in this instance can only be whether it is my opinion or not.

Now, back to the topic in hand.

>>...your claim that women should be able to hit men whenever they feel a bit emotional<<

It happens. Women quite often react at a more emotional level than men. But at the level of "violence" described, it would appear to be entirely within the bounds of reasonable social interaction. You categorize it as "violence", and at one level, it clearly is. But my opinion is still that to turn a trivial incident into a federal case is entirely unnecessary.

>>"Mum liked me better than my brother and anyway you're not a real man, so there"?<<

That you should attempt to put those words into my mouth says a great deal about you, and your confidence in your argument..

>>What I find irksome about your little performance here Pericles, is that it has derailed what could have been a serious discussion about the role of social conditioning around issues affecting the genders differently.<<

And what I find irksome, as I may have mentioned previously, is that you have taken an incident, "reported" by a journalist for whom you appear to have little respect, and used it to push your anti-women barrow, ad nauseam.

Your struggle with your wife through the Court system has left you scarred, that is obvious. It doesn't however make you automatically the font of all reason on domestic violence.

"But at the level of "violence" described, it would appear to be entirely within the bounds of reasonable social interaction."

again for those who missed it the violence as described "Each blow to the face came from a hand launched from behind her hipline with a thud." and "Twenty slaps, like rolling thunder."

Perhaps it's not Antiseptic, Belly and myself who should change who we associate with if that's considered "reasonable social interaction".

R0bert

Pericles, the answer "no" to a question that asks for grounds means you are implying that the grounds are contained within the response. Therefore, it is begging the question. do try to keep up, old fellow.

you then went on to do it yet again when pressed:"On the grounds that no-one should have the right to use violence with impunity." which is not actual grounds, it's a statement of belief.

Moreover, it's a statement of belief that is not at all absolute, since you have already offered an apologetic for women's violence based on precisely the same premises, but with the gender of the assailant altered. Not to put too fine a point on it, you've painted yourself into a rather tight and quite unpleasantly appointed corner.

The only possible concluson from all you'e posted here is that you think women are emotionally unstable and lack the capacity for self control, but that's OK because they're also physically incompetent, which I'm afraid says a great deal more about you than you might like to consider.

Whiteknightitis.

Impressive piece of casuistry, Antiseptic. Sits well with your faulty understanding of logic.

>>Pericles, the answer "no" to a question that asks for grounds means you are implying that the grounds are contained within the response. Therefore, it is begging the question. do try to keep up, old fellow.<<

Try this one: have you stopped beating your wife? On what grounds?

I'm not sure why you are spending so much time pretending that you are right. Although it does explain your inflexibility on the topic under discussion.

>>you then went on to do it yet again when pressed:"On the grounds that no-one should have the right to use violence with impunity." which is not actual grounds, it's a statement of belief.<<

Absolutely. It is an opinion. One that I hold, and requires no "grounds", other than it is an opinion that I hold. I am not asserting any of this as "fact", since we are all just delivering opinions. You just happen to mistake your own opinion for absolute fact, that's all.

>>...since you have already offered an apologetic for women's violence based on precisely the same premises, but with the gender of the assailant altered.<<

Not at all. The cases differ, precisely because I differentiate between male-on-male violence, and a slap delivered by a female at a party, where no-one was injured.

>>The only possible concluson from all you'e posted here is that you think women are emotionally unstable and lack the capacity for self control<<

No. But that sound eerily like your own opinion.

Or do I mean your assertion of fact.

Pericles:"Try this one: have you stopped beating your wife? On what grounds?"

Not at all equivalent logical cases. Mine was a simple case of inverting the gender of the assailant: yours presupposes a pre-existing condition. It's just more begging of the question.

Still, it's nice to have discovered the limits of one's interlocutors capacity to reason logically.

I note that the rest of your response has an eerie resonance with the schoolyard retort "I know you are but what am I?".It was a poor excuse for a conclusive argument then and thus it remains.

Pericles, a further question if I may. What do you do when your opinion is shown to be wanting?

Sure, Antiseptic.

>>Pericles, a further question if I may. What do you do when your opinion is shown to be wanting?<<

You may be sure I will let you know when that happens.