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