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?