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.